SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pranav Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 January, 2024

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation