Patna High Court
ANAND TIWARI ALIAS ANAND KUMAR TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as there is no absolute bar and the complaint appears to be a private dispute.
Summary
The petitioner, Anand Tiwari, was named in a 2010 complaint alleging mental and physical cruelty under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for demanding dowry after a divorce. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the complaint was a private dispute filed after the divorce and that there is no absolute bar to granting bail when a process under Section 82 CrPC is issued, citing Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The opposite party opposed bail, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant’s non‑appearance. The court observed that the complaint appeared to be set‑up, the dispute was private, and other co‑accused had been granted bail, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with a bond and sureties, subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a process under Section 82 CrPC has been issued
- Whether the complaint constitutes a private dispute warranting bail
- Whether the timing of the complaint after divorce indicates a set‑up
- Effect of the complainant’s non‑appearance on bail considerations
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2), 82
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A IPC
- private dispute
- Section 82 CrPC
- divorce
- remarriage
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72986 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1168 Year-2010 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
Anand Tiwari Alias Anand Kumar Tiwari Son Of Shri Ramji Tiwari Resident
Of Marudeeh, Post-Ramai Patti, P.S.-Badagaon, District-Varanasi (Uttar
Pradesh).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Pushpa Pandey Daughter of Rameshwar Nath Pandey Resident of Village-
Chausa, P.O.-Chausa, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar as also at Quarter No.-21,
Near Suta Factory Storage Godown, Opp. Jiwan Hospital, Modinagar,
Ghajiyabad, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the Complaint Case and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.
1168C of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P Act.
3. The allegation against petitioner is to commit mental
and physical cruelty upon complainant/O.P. No. 2 due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for one Maruti car, one
lakh cash, one golden chain etc.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that the present complaint case was filed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72986 of 2023(3) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
the year 2010 only when petitioner obtained divorce from
complainant through divorce case no. 692 of 2006 from the court
of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi ( annexure p/2).
It is fairly pointed out that learned SDJM issued process under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C., but as the dispute is private in nature,
therefore, in view of legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633, in interest of justice
the privilege of anticipatory bail be granted to petitioner as there is
no absolute bar as such that mechanically in all cases where the
process initiated under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the anticipatory bail
shall not be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Arguing further, it is also submitted that the
allegation qua demand of dowry committing mental cruelty is also
appearing very much general and omnibus in nature. While
concluding the argument, it is submitted that both parties after
obtaining divorce, solemnized their marriage. It is further
submitted that the judgment of divorce as discussed aforesaid was
never challenged by complainant/O.P. No. 2 before any higher
forum.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.
7. It is submitted that this matter was initially tied up
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72986 of 2023(3) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
with Cr. Misc. No. 58649 of 2023, where notice was issued, but
despite repeated efforts, the complainant failed to join the present
proceedings, where after, the other co-accused persons who are
in-laws were granted bail.
8. None appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
note of fact as the present complaint case was lodged after one
year of dissolving the marriage between the parties, raising a
serious doubt qua narration as set up through complaint,
accordingly petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks, is
directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Buxar
/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1168C of 2010, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482(2) of
BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.