Patna High Court
STYPRKASH MALLI @ STYPRAKASH SHRIMALLIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted interim pre‑arrest bail, directing mediation and conditioning the bail on the parties’ appearance before the District Court and mediator.
Summary
Styprkash Malli applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case arising from a matrimonial dispute where he was accused under several sections of the BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR alleged that after marriage he and his family demanded money and a motorcycle from the informant’s father, and upon non‑payment subjected the informant to torture and eviction. The petitioner claimed innocence and sought a peaceful resolution, agreeing to appear before the District Court for mediation. The court held that matrimonial disputes are private matters and not offences against society, and that proceeding criminally would constitute an abuse of process. Accordingly, the court directed the District Court to facilitate mediation and granted interim pre‑arrest bail, subject to conditions and the outcome of the mediation.
Issues considered
- Whether a matrimonial dispute alleged under criminal statutes warrants denial of pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence against society or a private family matter.
- Whether the court can condition bail on mediation and appearance before the District Court.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- mediation
- dowry prohibition
- abuse of process
- family law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87427 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2025 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Styprkash Malli @ Styprakash Shrimalli, aged about 40 years, Gender- Male,
Son of Dharmdev Bhagt, Resident of village - Chautariya, Ward No.- 04, P.S.-
Bairiya, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Rupa Devi Wife of Styprkash Malli @ Styprakash Shrimalli Resident of
village - Chautariya, Ward No.- 04, P.S.- Bairiya, District - West Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.
1, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Bairiya P.S. Case No. 471 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 351(2),
352 and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage
of the informant was solemnized to the petitioner in the year
2021 according to Hindu rites and customs. After one year of
marriage, the petitioner and his family members had started
demanding rupees five lakh and a motorcycle from the father of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87427 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
the informant and due to non-fulfillment of the same, they had
subjected the informant to various sorts of torture and ousted her
from her matrimonial house.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that
petitioner always tries to lead a peaceful married life with the
informant but she never co-operates with him on the instigation
of her family members. Learned counsel further submitted that
marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish
suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile
their dispute outside the court.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. However, at this stage, the petitioner’s counsel, on
instruction, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to appear
before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.02.2026
for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
7. Heard the parties.
8. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against
the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87427 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence
against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous
consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal
dispute cannot call for a criminal offence. In such situation,
continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of
process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the
petitioner.
9. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in
paragraph nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:-
“12. The special features in such matrimonial matters
are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
[(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt
for determining the approach required to be kept in view
in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that
there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many other reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different
courts.”
10. The petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on 17.02.2026, so that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87427 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
11. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties so as to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
12. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned upon appearance of the parties on the fixed date shall
make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and
thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned
District Court, well within a period of three months, till then, no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in
connection with the aforesaid case.
13. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court, the petitioner is required to be released on pre-
arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District
Court deems it fit and proper.
14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 17.02.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87427 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite
party no.2 to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
16. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
17. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…