Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sunny Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The High Court granted interim pre‑arrest bail and directed mediation, disposing of the application.

Summary

Sunny Kumar Yadav applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case involving alleged dowry‑related violence and other offences under the IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act, SC/ST (POA) Act and POCSO Act. The court observed that the dispute is essentially a private matrimonial conflict rather than a societal offence and warned against abuse of the legal process. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench emphasized the need to encourage amicable settlement through mediation. The petitioner was directed to appear before the District Court on a specified date for mediation, and no coercive action would be taken pending that process. The court ordered that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions set by the District Court and disposed of the bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the matrimonial dispute, despite serious charges, warrants pre‑arrest bail.
  • Whether continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process in a private family dispute.
  • Whether mediation is an appropriate mechanism before granting bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • pre‑arrest bail
  • matrimonial dispute
  • mediation
  • dowry harassment
  • abuse of process
  • family law
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90707 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S BAGHA District- West
                                                        Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sunny Kumar Yadav S/O Jamadar Yadav R/O Village- Pratappur, P.S.- Semra,
                 District- West Champaran.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    X W/O Y R/O Village- Pratappur, P.S- Semra, Distt.- West Champaran.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Bagaha Mahila P.S. Case No. 35 of 2021 registered for the

                   offence(s) punishable under Sections 341, 323, 366A, 498A, 34

                   of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry

                   Prohibition Act, Sections 3(i)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and

                   Sections 4, 8, 10, 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual

                   Offences Act.

                                3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the

                   informant, soon after her marriage, was subjected to physical

                   and mental torture by her husband and her in-laws due to non-

                   fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90707 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/5




                       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, learned counsel for the

          respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have

          agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

          on 12.02.2026 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

          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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90707 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            3/5




          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 12.02.2026, so that the

          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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90707 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            4/5




          upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned

          Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for

          appearance of the parties 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 four 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 12.02.2026 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.

                       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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90707 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       5/5




                     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)
Ashishsingh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.