IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2043 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Harsh Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Son of Late Sudhir Sharma R/o Ward no. 09, Gola Chak, P.S. - Sitamarhi, Distt - Sitamarhi, Dist. - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Pooja Kumari D/o Mukhtar Sharma, W/o Harsh Kumar @ Rohit Kumar R/o Ward no. 20, Pupri, P.S. - Pupri, Dist. - Sitamarhi. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP For the Informant : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 06-04-2026 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 Sections 85, 115(2), 126(1), 351, 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Earlier, vide order dated 31.01.2026, the matter was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026 2/4 referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court. From perusal of mediator’s report dated 01.04.2026 it is apparent that despite best efforts, the dispute between the parties 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 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 subsequently, ousted her 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.. As a matter of fact, petitioner 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026 3/4 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 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 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi Mahila P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, 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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026 4/4 connected proceedings. The present order, in no way, will preclude the parties to resolve the issue otherwise.” shashank/- (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T