Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51379 (PAT)

PRATIK KUMAR PANDEY @ PRATIK KUMAR v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./39461/2025 · 2025-08-18

Prabhat Kumar Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39461 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2025 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== PRATIK KUMAR PANDEY @ PRATIK KUMAR Son of LATE OM PRAKASH PANDEY R/O VILL- INDRAPURI , PS- PATLIPUTRA , DISTT- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Medha Kumari Wife of Pratik Kumar Pandey R/O VILL- INDRAPURI ROAD NO. 5, PS- PATLIPUTRA , DISTT- PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP For the Informant : Mr. Mahboob Ashraf, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 18-08-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The petitioner, husband of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2, apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Earlier, vide order dated 26.06.2025, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 11.08.2025 it is apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39461 of 2025(3) dt.18-08-2025 2/3 could not be resolved through the process of mediation. 4. As per prosecution case, marriage of informant/Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized with this petitioner on 07.02.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter, all the F.I.R. accused persons, including this petitioner, started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment and later on, ousted from her matrimonial house. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner denies the allegations made in the F.I.R.. He never committed torture to informant/Opposite Party No. 2 or demanded any dowry. However, the petitioner undertakes to give Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month by way of temporary relief/solace, starting from this month, to the informant/Opposite Party No. 2. Petitioner claims clean antecedents. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39461 of 2025(3) dt.18-08-2025 3/3 the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary relief/solace of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) per month to informant/Opposite Party No. 2, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the petitioner, above-named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X, Patna in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. with further following conditions: “(A.) Informant/Opposite Party No. 2 would file an affidavit before the court below and bring on record her saving bank account number for its communication to the petitioner. (B.) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid aforesaid amount per month in the saving bank account of the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 . (C.) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount for two consecutive months, the court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail bond. (D.) The aforementioned payment will be subject to any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance or connected proceedings. The present order, in no way, will preclude the parties to resolve the issue otherwise.” shashank/- (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T