Patna High Court
Taslim Arif @ Taslim AarifversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner persisted in dowry harassment and committed mental torture by entering a second marriage.
Summary
The petitioner, Taslim Arif, was accused in a complaint under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 341, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for allegedly demanding dowry and harassing his wife, Rubi Khatoon, after marriage. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming no dowry demand was made and that the parties had reached a settlement and agreed to divorce. The complainant opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner continued to harass her for dowry and had taken a second marriage, constituting mental torture. The court noted that despite mediation attempts, the petitioner persisted in dowry harassment and the second marriage, which aggravated the alleged offences. Consequently, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding sufficient grounds to continue the criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the offences alleged in the complaint
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged dowry demand and second marriage constitute sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 406, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- anticipatory bail
- mental torture
- second marriage
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85696 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DEHRI-ON-SONE
District- Rohtas
======================================================
Taslim Arif @ Taslim Aarif S/o Jahangir Ansari Resident of Village - Amari,
P.O - Karwandiya, P.S - Sasaram (M), District - Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rubi Khatoon W/o Taslim Arif D/o Late Azmer Ansari, R/o Village -
Saraiya, P.S - Amjhor, District - Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Siddharth Harsh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-04-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 87 of 2024 registered under Section 498A,
406, 323, 341, 504, 506 / 34 of the I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the complaint petition the marriage of the
complainant was performed with the petitioner on 09.07.2023. It
is alleged that after two months of her marriage, the petitioner
along with other family members started demanding
Rs. 2,00,000 /- as dowry and due to non fulfillment of the
demand of dowry lastly ousted her from matrimonial home.
4. Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85696 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the
manner alleged. The complainant does not want to live in her
matrimonial home at village Amari and she always forced the
petitioner to be separate from his parents and to take house on
rent at Sasaram. The petitioner and his family members never
demanded any dowry either in kind and / or cash. After
complainant left the matrimonial home on 22.11.2023
settlement was reached at between the parties in presence of
well wishers of both the parties and it was decided that the
petitioner side would return the goods and money offered /
gifted in the marriage to the complainant side and thereafter
both the parties agreed for divorce. The petitioner side has
already returned the things as per agreement but thereafter the
present case has been lodged on the basis of concocted story.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant / opposite party no.
2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He
submits that the matter was referred for mediation vide order
dated 20.03.2026 but despite sincere efforts of the learned
Mediator the mediation failed (mediation report- flag ‘M’) and
complainant came to know that the petitioner has performed
second marriage.
6. Regard being had to the submission made by the parties,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85696 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
taking into consideration the fact that petitioner constantly
harassed the complainant due to non fulfillment of demand of
dowry and during subsistence of first marriage the petitioner
performed second marriage which amounts to giving mental
torture to the complainant, accordingly, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.