Deepak Kumar Chouhan Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

Deepak Kumar Chouhan Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon arrest/surrender within eight weeks on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Complaint Case No. 359 of 2024, subject to section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482 B.N.S.S. conditions and monthly payment/deposit of Rs. 3,000/- to opposite party no. 2, with liberty to the court below to cancel the bail-bond on default for two consecutive months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, husband of opposite party no. 2, apprehending arrest in a complaint case punishable under Sections 323, 498(A) & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, should be enlarged on bail (anticipatory bail) upon arrest/surrender.

Court's answer

In view of the petitioner's undertaking, he is to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest/surrender within eight weeks, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Complaint Case No. 359 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482 of the B.N.S.S.

Ratio / Principle

As part of the bail arrangement, the petitioner undertakes to give Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of temporary relief/solace to opposite party no. 2, starting from the month of the order.

Key takeaways

Condition (1) and (2): opposite party no. 2 is to file an affidavit before the court below bringing on record her savings bank account number for communication to the petitioner, and the petitioner is to deposit the aforesaid amount per month in that savings bank account.ratio¶21
Condition (3): if the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount for two consecutive months, the court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail-bond.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted to a husband apprehending arrest in an Aurangabad complaint case (Sections 323, 498(A) & 504 IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act) after court-referred mediation at the Patna High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre failed; petitioner to be enlarged on bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties to learned C.J.M., Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Complaint Case No. 359 of 2024, conditioned on monthly deposit of Rs. 3,000/- as temporary relief/solace in the wife's disclosed savings bank account; default for two consecutive months empowers the court below to cancel the bail-bond; payments expressly subject to orders in matrimonial, maintenance or connected proceedings. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.; decided 23-07-2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91642 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2024 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Aurangabad

======================================================

Deepak Kumar Chouhan S/o- Ramswarup Chouhan R/v- Manjauli PsKutumba Dist- Aurangabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

Meena Kumari W/o- Deepak Kumar Chouhan R/v- Vanjauli Ps- Kutumba Dist- Aurangabad, R/v- Mahatha Ps- Barun Dist- Aurangabad

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Chandra Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ramesh Chandra, APP Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.for OP-2 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 23-07-2026

Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of Patna High Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant / opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no. 2, apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for the offences under Sections 323, 498(A) & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner is alleged to have committed torture and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91642 of 2025(4) dt.23-07-2026 2/3

harassment with opposite party no. 2 for dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner denies the allegation made in the complaint petition and submits that he never committed torture to opposite party no. 2 or demanded any dowry. However, the petitioner undertakes to give Rs. 3,000/-per month by way of temporary relief/solace, starting from this month, to the opposite party no.2.

In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary relief/solace of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month to the opposite party no. 2, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above-named petitioner 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 C.J.M., Aurangabad (Bihar) in connection with Complaint Case No. 359 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482 of the B.N.S.S. as well as on the following conditions:-

“(1) Opposite party no. 2 would file an affidavit before the court below and bring on record her savings bank account number for its communication to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91642 of 2025(4) dt.23-07-2026 3/3

(2) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid amount per month in the savings bank account of the opposite party no. 2.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.”

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

anay

U T