—
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77850 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9898 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
Pranav Kumar Singh, S/O Shri Dilip Singh, R/O Village- Kailash Nagar
(Gauriya Asthan), Godhna Road, P.S- Nawada, Distt.- Bhojpur (Arrah).
… … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pallavi Singh, D/O Shri Anil Kumar, R/O New Chaman Chowk, East of
Laxmi Nagar, Nearby Saraswati Bal Vidya Mandir School, P.O- East Laxmi
Nagar, PS- Ram Krishna Nagar, Distt.- Patna- 800020.
… … Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
2 10-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioner in this case is seeking pre-arrest bail
in connection with Complaint Case No. 9898 (C) of 2022 in
which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. He has got no criminal antecedent.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 11.12.2020, the
complainant-O.P. No. 2 solemnized marriage with the petitioner
according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, the
husband of the complainant and his family members started
torturing her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.10
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77850 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024
2/6
lakhs and a Scorpio car. It is alleged that after eight months of
marriage, she went to Bangalore where her husband was
residing and there her husband used to beat her in intoxicated
condition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present case has been lodged making false and frivolous
allegations against him. It is a case where there is an issue of
compatibility between the husband and wife which has given
rise to a matrimonial discord.
5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has
filed a divorce case being Matrimonial Case No. 267 of 2022 in
the court of learned Principal Judge, Ara (Bhojpur) under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is only after
filing of the said divorce case and when the Opposite Party No.
2 got knowledge of the same, the present case has been lodged.
While answering a court’s query in course of her deposition
under Section 202 CrPC, the O.P. No. 2 has admitted that the
divorce case has been filed prior in time.
6. Learned counsel submits that the attempt earlier
taken for conciliation has failed because of the nasty kind of
allegations which have been made against the petitioner and his
entire family members including the lady members of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77850 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024
3/6
family. It is a case of over-implication of the family members.
7. It is lastly submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 has
filed the present case, a case under Domestic Violence Act and a
case for maintenance. Learned counsel has, at this stage,
submitted that the learned court below has refused to grant
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner only because the
petitioner did not agree to live with the Opposite Party No. 2
and he was not ready to pay any maintenance, however, learned
counsel submits on his own that in order to show his bonafides,
the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to
the O.P. No. 2 for the present, subject to any order which will be
passed by a competent court in the maintenance case.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. No. 2 as
well as learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for
pre-arrest bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the fact that
divorce petition was filed prior in time cannot be a ground to
grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The
submission is that it is a case of causing physical and mental
cruelty upon the complainant-O.P. No. 2.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case as also the materials available on the record, this Court has
noticed that it is a case of matrimonial discord and dispute. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77850 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024
4/6
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna is not correct in
observing that the present case would not be covered by the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. In fact in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reiterated the views expressed earlier by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar versus the State of Bihar
and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. This is a case
under Section 498A IPC and this Court finds no reason as to
why the learned Additional Sessions Judge would take a view
that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court would not cover
this case.
10. In the opinion of this Court, in case the learned
Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not applicable in this case, the
court was obliged to point out the distinction and the
distinguishing feature of the case. A general observation of the
nature given in the impugned order cannot be said to be a
judicious consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf
of the petitioner.
11. This Court has further noticed that the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77850 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024
5/6
anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected only because
the court found that the petitioner was not ready to live with
O.P. No. 2 and was not ready to pay maintenance. Again, this
ground for rejection is not in tune with the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and a recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Choudhary versus the
State of Jharkhand and Another (Cr. Appeal No. 3701 of
2023) would clearly demonstrate that such grounds cannot be
taken for rejection of a prayer for anticipatory bail. If the
husband is willing to provide some financial help subject to an
appropriate order of a competent order and such plea is taken
without there being any imposition to that extent by the court,
such fact could have been recorded but rejection of the
anticipatory bail on the ground stated in the impugned order is
not based on a correct statement of law and the judicial
pronouncement.
12. For the reasons stated above, this Court directs
that in case of his arrest or surrender within a period of four
weeks from today, the petitioner above named be released on
bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 9898 (C) of 2022
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77850 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024
6/6
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C.
13. It goes without saying that since the petitioner has
on his own come forward to submit that he would pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No. 2, such amount
shall be paid within first seven days of every month in the bank
account of the Opposite Party No. 2.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
details of the bank account be provided by the O.P. No. 2
through her lawyer for this purpose.
15. This application stands disposed of accordingly.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Patna for circulation among
the Presiding Officers.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U T