Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court granted conditional pre‑arrest bail, directing mediation and interim protection pending settlement.

Summary

The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC alleging dowry‑related physical and mental torture by his wife and in‑laws. He contended that the allegations were false and that the dispute was purely matrimonial, seeking resolution through mediation. The State opposed the bail but suggested an amicable settlement. The Court, relying on precedents that matrimonial disputes should be settled out of court and not be used to abuse the legal process, directed that the petitioner appear before the District Court for mediation and granted interim protection against coercive action. It ordered the District Mediation Centre to facilitate settlement and stipulated that bail would continue subject to the mediator’s report or the petitioner’s failure to appear. The application was consequently disposed of with conditional pre‑arrest bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether a pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a Section 498A case that is essentially a matrimonial dispute.
  • Whether the proceeding amounts to an abuse of process warranting interim protection and mediation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • pre‑arrest bail
  • dowry harassment
  • Section 498A
  • matrimonial dispute
  • mediation
  • abuse of process
  • family law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92074 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1211 Year-2024 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
                                                 District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Jitendra Kumar Son of Sri Bhulan Sah Resident of Village - Machhargawan,
                 P.S.- Jogapatti, District - West Champaran.

                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Manorma Devi Wife of Sri Rambabu Prasad Resident of Mohalla -
                 Nawrangabag, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District - West Champaran.
           3.    Mamta Kumari @ Nisha Kumari Wife of Jitendra Kumar Daughter of Sri
                 Rambabu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla - Nawrangabag, P.S.- Bettiah Town,
                 District - West Champaran.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr.Prem Kumar Jha, 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 Complaint Case No. 1211 of 2024 registered for the

                   offence(s) punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal

                   Code.

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

                   complainant, 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.92074 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction,

          submitted that the petitioner seeks 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.92074 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 OP No.2 and upon their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92074 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            4/5




          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.92074 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.