Ranjit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2921 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Ranjit Singh Son of Sita Ram Singh Resident of Village - Suryapura, Police Station - Suryapura, District - Rohtas, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Raj Kumari Devi D/o Late Teju Singh R/o House no. 820, Gali no. 3, Sanjay Enclav, Chacha Chowk, Faridabad, Haryana. At present C/o Rajesh Kushwaha, Village - Sunder, P.S. - Dawath, Dist. - Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Ms. Niharika Rani, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-06-2026 Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Center of Patna High Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed (Report kept at flag 'M').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the opposite party no.2.

3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 352, 35(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while denying the allegations, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case because he happens

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2921 of 2026(5) dt.22-06-2026 2/2 to be husband of opposite party no.2. Petitioner is unable to pay interim solace/maintenance to opposite party no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner, being husband of opposite party no.2, in connivance with his family members, subjected her to harassment and cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also ousted her to her parents' house. It is further submitted that she has no means of livelihood and is on the verge of starvation.

6. Petitioner is husband of opposite party no.2. It is both a statutory and moral duty of a husband to ensure that his wife does not fall into destitution. The wife has a legal right to maintain a standard of living comparable to what she would have enjoyed while living with her husband. Petitioner cannot refuse to provide maintenance to opposite party no.2.

7. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation and conduct of the petitioner, his prayer for bail is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T