In Saurabh Bhardwaj vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe passed an order dated December 12, 2025, wherein, it reversed the order dated September 16, 2025 by Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court whereby he had denied anticipatory bail to the appellant. The case will be re-list on February 24, 2026.
The Court's order reads: "Subject to the petitioner, Saurabh Bhardwaj, joining and co-operating with the investigation in connection with Complaint Case No. 2288 of 2020 registered for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he shall not be arrested till the next hearing. In addition, the petitioner shall scrupulously abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." The respondent no. 2 is Saraswati Kumari, wife of Saurabh Bhardwaj and daughter of Virendra Sahani.
The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with a Complaint Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.. The marriage of the complainant, according to the recitals of the complaint petition, was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2016. The marriage was registered and a certificate was issued. Thereafter, the accused persons
demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs. Out of the wedlock of the couple, a male child, Shubham Bhardwaj was born. It was also alleged that after retaining the belongings of the complainant, the accused persons ousted her from the matrimonial house.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that having concealed the factum of her earlier marriage, the complainant solemnized her second marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the fact that she had already solemnized marriage with another person and had two sons. He also submitted that her first marriage was also mentioned in the enquiry report submitted by a police officer to the Superintendent of Police. He also submitted that in Mahila Hajipur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2020, after investigation, the police have submitted the final form, which is annexed with the record.
The counsel for the complainant had opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it was not a fact that the petitioner was already married. He also submitted that the petitioner had filed cases for divorce twice against the complainant and withdrew both of the cases, which shows that the petitioner did not intend to divorce the victim. He also submitted that Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali, granted interim maintenance to the complainant of Rs. 9,000/- per month for herself and her children. The order was passed in the year 2022, but the petitioner is not obeying the order and has not paid a single rupee to the victim to which the learned counsel for the petitioner replied that he had challenged the order in revision before the High Court but fairly admitted that there is no stay against that order. The order of interim maintenance was passed by the Family Court in the year 2022, but not a single rupee was paid to the victim and according to the submission of the, she was on the verge of starvation. She was residing with her children, having no financial means.
Justice Pandey had concluded: :7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is rejected." Now the Supreme Court has reversed this order.
No comments:
Post a Comment