Supreme Court sets aside regular bail rejection order by Justice Partha Sarthy in a rape case from Mohaniya, Kaimur, Bhabua

In Jokhan @ Jokhan Sant @ Dharmkant Sant vs. The State of Bihar Justice & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 4-page long order dated August 13, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order of Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court. The order reads:"...we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. 10. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem fit to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case." 

The appeal arose from the order dated January 21, 2026 rejecting the regular bail prayer of the appellant in connection with P.S. Mohaniya, Kaimur, Bhabua. According to the prosecution case, the victim was found on the terrace of Ramakant’s house. Ramakant is the father of the appellant. The victim complained to her mother that she became unconscious because some scented handkerchief was put on her face by the appellant and, thereafter, she does not remember as to what happened. 

The order records: "5. It is not in dispute that her medical examination was conducted promptly and the medical report found no injury and no signs of recent sexual intercourse. Even to the Doctor, she had not reported any incident of sexual intercourse or sexual assault on her. 6. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated; there is no medical report to corroborate the allegations which were leveled as an afterthought; and they never appeared in the First Information Report or in the statement of the victim made to the Doctor. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant, who has no previous criminal antecedents and has suffered incarceration for a period exceeding one year, is entitled to be released on bail at this stage." The counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that there was no specific allegation of sexual assault in the First Information Report and there is no corroboration of the aforesaid allegation in the medical examination report. 

Earlier, in Jokhan @ Jokhan Sant @ Dharmkant Sant vs. The State of Bihar & Anr (2025), Justice Partha Sarthy had passed a 2-page long order dated January 21, 2026, wherein, he had concluded:"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the material that has transpired in course of investigation specially the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under section 183 B.N.S.S., the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. 7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later."

The petitioner had approached the High Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case no. 676 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 64 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was accused of having assaulting and outraging the modesty of the minor daughter of the informant as a result of which she fell unconscious and regained consciousness after three to four hours in the hospital. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as a result of differences between the parties who are next door neighbours. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since August 5, 2025. Referring to the order of the trial Court, it was submitted that even as per the medical report, there is no finding of rape. The application for bail is opposed by APP for the State who submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR and there is direct allegation against him. Even in her statement under section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim had given a detailed description of the assault etc by the petitioner.

Section 126 of the BNS defines and penalizes the offense of wrongful restraint, which occurs when someone voluntarily stops a person from moving in a direction they have a legal right to go. It replaces Section 341 of the IPC. 

Section 115 of BNS deals with voluntarily causing hurt. It replaces the old Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

 Section 76 of the BNS deals with the offense of assaulting or using criminal force against a woman with the intent to disrobe her or force her to be naked.

Section 64 of BNS has replaced Section 376 of the IPC to define the punishment for rape, mandating at least 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, potentially extending to life imprisonment, and a fine. Section 62 of BNS provides for punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.

High Court cannot impose civil suit-related conditions while granting anticipatory bail: Supreme Court

In Nehru Irulandi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Vishwanathan delivered judgment dated May 27, 2026, wherein, it set aside order dated February 24, 2026 by Madras High Court's condition restraining accused from interfering with disputed property, holding that criminal courts cannot effectively grant relief pending in a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail cannot amount to granting relief that is yet to be decided by a civil court.

It set aside the condition prohibiting the appellants from interfering with the disputed property until the civil suit was decided. It clarified that all other conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail would continue to remain in force.

It observed that if the complainant, as plaintiff in the civil suit, apprehends breach of peace or interference with the suit property, he is free to seek appropriate relief before the civil court or any other appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Perunazhi Police Station, Madurai, for offences under Sections 189(2), 329(3), 324(4), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. While granting anticipatory bail to the appellants and other co-accused, the high court had directed them not to interfere with the disputed property until the conclusion of a civil suit filed by the complainant.

Responding to the question: can a High Court impose civil suit-related conditions while granting anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court answered in the negative. It held that such a condition effectively amounted to granting relief in the civil suit itself. The Court observed that the appellants were defendants in a civil suit filed by the complainant seeking a permanent injunction. It factored in the fact that the appellant's claim that he had purchased the suit property.

The judgement reads: "Prima facie, it appears that the case of the appellant, namely, Nehru Irulandi as one of the defendants is that he has purchased the suit property. Be that as it may, the Suit is of the year 2019. The plaintiff has not prayed for any injunction pending the Suit".

Supreme Court recorded that although an application seeking interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed, it had not yet been taken up for hearing by the civil court.

The judgement reads:"We are of the view that while granting anticipatory bail, high court should not have imposed a condition which tantamount to granting of some relief in the suit itself, which otherwise the civil court has not granted."

The Division Bench held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction in a criminal matter, could not impose a condition that effectively granted a relief which the civil court itself had not granted.

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra

In Suraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a 2-page long order dated May 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"5. We are informed that out of nine accused persons, all the four lady accused have been released on bail. The High Court initially had protected the petitioner from any coercive steps being taken against him. 6. In the overall view of the matter, particularly the genesis of the occurrence and the fact that they all are  neighbors, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favor of the petitioner. 7. We order that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, referred to above, he shall be released on bail by the IO subject to terms and conditions that he may deem fit to impose. 8. Once the petitioner is released by the IO, he shall thereafter furnish fresh bonds to the Trial Court." Prior to that the allowed the exemption applications.

The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court through SLP after being denied anticipatory bail by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in connection with the First Information Report of 2025 registered with Singhaul Police Station,  Begusarai for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively.

Supreme Court took "notice of the fact that in the FIR, nine persons have been named as accused. Out of nine, four are ladies." It observed: "4. It is evident on plain reading of the FIR, the other materials on record and also the impugned Order passed by the High Court that the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses are neighbors. On the date of the incident, they picked up a fight which ultimately led to an assault. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons attempted to commit murder. Whether it is a case of attempt to commit murder or not will be looked into by the Trial Court in the course of trial."

In his order dated February 11, 2026, Justice Mishra had rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date of occurrence, the named accused persons including petitioner came to the house of informant Aarti Kumari and started beating her and her husband. The petitioner was alleged to have assaulted the informant’s husband with iron rod on back of his head due to which he fell down and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him with bricks and stone as a result of which the husband of informant sustained injuries. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case due to dirty village politics. The informant and the petitioner were agnates. The petitioner had clean antecedent. A.P.P. for the State had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by contending that there was direct allegation of assault to the husband of informant on his head with iron rod against the petitioner causing head injury. He further submitted that the injury report showed that the injury caused to the injured was found to be grievous in nature. Therefore, the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail. In such a backdrop, Justice Mishra was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 

Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail, Justice Ansul of Patna High Court had rejected anticipatory bail application

In Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari vs.The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti passed a 2-page long order dated May 4, 2026, wherein, concluded:"Till the next date of hearing, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No.58/2026 registered with Bharahi/Bharrahi Police Station, District Madhepura, Bihar, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 352 and 351(2) & (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer....6. However, we also make it clear that being the dispute between the mother-in-law on the one side and son and daughter-in-law on the other side, an attempt should be made to amicably resolve the matter." The matter will be called again on May 25, 2026. 

The Court observed: "2. Considering that the dispute is within the family where the complainant is the mother-in-law and the accused persons are son and daughter-in-law, we are inclined to consider the matter."

Prior to this in Navin Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul of the Patna High Court had heard the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner who had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in Bharrahi P.S. Case. The petitioner no. 2 was Babita Devi @ Babita Kumari 2. The mother had alleged that the son had manipulated signatures of parties and had got the land registered in his wife’s name. In his order dated April 22, 2026, Justice Ansul had observed:"4. Considering such inhuman conduct of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected."

Supreme Court reverses bail rejection order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a gold chain snatching case

In Mukesh Tiwari @ Mukesh Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V Viswanathan and N.K Singh passed a 3-page long order, wherein, it reversed the 2-page long order dated February 23, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. Supreme Court concluded: "6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody for 10 months in a case where the maximum sentence is 3 years, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, if not required in any other case, subject to terms and conditions that the Trial Court may think fit to impose. 8. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms."

The Special Leave Petition questioned the correctness of the order of the High Court. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 202. Snatching is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence.

Section 304 (1) of BNS 2023 defines snatching as a distinct form of theft. For an act to qualify as “Snatching,” it must encompass all elements of theft, including dishonest intention, lack of consent, and the movement of the property. Section 304 (2) provides that “whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine”.

If the offence is penalized under Section 304(2) according to Section 283(2) of the BNSS, the magistrate may choose to hold a summary trial. The offence has been made triable by any magistrate. 

FIR registration under Sections 173 of BNSS, the procedure begins when the complainant goes to the police station to file an FIR under Section 173. Property seizure under Sections 106-107: During the investigation, the police may seize any property associated with the crime vide Section 106. It also requires the seized property to be presented to the Magistrate. Section 107 (7), (8) lays down the procedure for the attachment, forfeiture or restoration of such property to the victim. Investigation (Sections 173-196): A new provision in BNSS has been added vide Section 173(3) wherein on receipt of information relating to a cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the police station may with prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (i) Conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within 14 days, or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case. The procedure for investigation is given under Section 176. 

There is provision for charge Sheet under Section 193. If there is adequate evidence following an inquiry, a charge sheet is submitted under Section 193. Framing of Charges under Section 251): Section 251 provides the framework for the start of the trial. BNSS states that charges must be framed within 60 days of the initial charge hearing. Trial under Sections 248-260: The witnesses are examined, cross-examined, and re-examined as the trial moves along. Under Section 248, the Public Prosecutor will lead the trial. 

Under Section 249, prosecution will begin. Under Section 250, there is provision for discharge. Under Section 251, there is a provision for framing of charges. Under Section 252,there is a provision for plea of guilty and conviction. Under Section 253, the date of the prosecution's evidence is fixed. Under Section 254, there is provision for prosecution-related evidence. Section 255 has provision for acquittal. Sections 258-260 has provisions for judgment. The court renders a decision based on the evidence that was put out in the trial. 

Snatching is one of the new offences that has been introduced in the BNS, one of the three new criminal laws. The rising incidents of chain snatching, and mobile phone snatching, which contain sensitive data, financial information, and passwords necessitated the addition of a section to punish the same. Theft is considered “snatching” if, with the intent to commit theft, the offender suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizes, secures, grabs, or takes away any movable property from any person or their possession. Theft was formerly specified under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), however, snatching was not specifically listed as a distinct crime. 

In the High Court, Justice Kumar's order noted that it was the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 304 of the BNS. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated September 17, 2025. The second bail application was preferred by the petitioner within six months of its earlier rejection. The High Court had observed:" 4. In the opinion of this Court, this application is premature as successive bail applications cannot be entertained by this Court within few months of earlier rejection. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Patna High Court, Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today." 

On the earlier occasion, Justice Kumar's order had recorded that as per the prosecution case, unknown criminals were found involved in snatching the gold chain from the neck of the wife of the informant. The motorcycle of the snatchers was recovered from the place of the occurrence which belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since June 12, 2025 and had two criminal antecedents. His earlier, order had concluded:"5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected."

Unlike Justice Kumar, Supreme Court's Division Bench was persuaded by the submission of the counsel for the petitioner to grant bail. It was submitted that the petitioner had already undergone 10 months imprisonment and that the maximum punishment is 3 years. The offence was also a Magistrate triable offence. 

Supreme Court set aside order by Justice Rajiv Roy, grants anticipatory bail

In  Maksud Alam & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh And Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed a 5-page long order dated April 24, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....the impugned order stands set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 5th May, 2026 at 11.00 a.m. If they do not appear on the said day, anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by this Court shall stand cancelled automatically."

The impugned order refers to the 3-page long order dated January 15, 2026 by Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court.  

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Amnour P.S. Case No. 220 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged by the informant Ankita Raj. The informant had alleged that after treatment of her child, as they were returning on their vehicle, the wedding procession of Siraj Ansari was going on. As they have blocked the road, request was made whereafter the accused side armed variously assaulted causing injuries. The husband and the informant was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Garkha, Saran at Chapra and the allegation is that thereafter Ehsan Ali threatened the informant and others with dire consequences after their release on bail. This led to the F.I.R.

The counsel for the petitioner had taken Justice Royto Court to an order passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in Najrul Miyan and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar disposed of on December 24, 2025 to show that similar situated persons were extended relief. 

Supreme Court observed: "The antecedent in which the appellants are allegedly involved, pertain to an occurrence in respect of which a complaint was also given on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have, in fact, joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required." It has reversed the order by Justice Roy. 

Supreme Court reverses Justice Sandeep Kumar's bail denying order

In Amit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 7-page long order dated February 13, 2026 reversing the order dated October 17, 2025 by Justices Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court against order of rejection of regular bail by the High Court and to seek bail. Justices Maheshwari and Chandurkar concluded:"....we direct to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court." 

Supreme Court noted that "....the maximum sentence as prescribed for the offence is up to three years and the petitioner has already served about eight months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court for regular bail in connection with a P.S. Case of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of chain snatching. The face of the petitioner was captured in the CCTV footage and the informant had identified the petitioner as one of the accused. The petitioner was in custody since April 5, 2025 and had 13 criminal antecedents. 

Justice Kumar had observed: "5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected."

Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra quashes cognizance order by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai

Patna High Court delivered three judgements on January 19, 2026 in Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Arun Kumar Choudhary @ Arun Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar and Ravi Singh vs. The State of Bihar. 

In Manju Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra delivered a 10-page long judgement, wherein, he concluded:"21. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed at the threshold in a routine manner. However, where the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence, the prosecution is founded on legally untenable grounds, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, interference by this Court becomes not only permissible but imperative. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of cognizance suffers from non-application of mind and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would result in grave miscarriage of justice. 23. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. "

The application was filed for quashing the order dated January 3, 2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai in a Complaint Case of 2024 whereby and whereunder th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai took cognizance and issued process for facing trial against the petitioners and others for the offences under sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case was that the complainant solemnized marriage with the co-accused, Sumit Kumar, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at the Kali Temple, Begusarai. It was alleged that despite being fully aware that the complainant was a divorced woman belonging to a different caste and having a minor son from her previous marriage, the co-accused Sumit Kumar voluntarily entered into the matrimonial alliance. After the marriage, the complainant was kept in a rented accommodation. Subsequently, it was alleged that the co-accused Sumit Kumar, along with the other accused persons, subjected the complainant to cruelty, including caste-based abuse and physical assault. It was also alleged that Shivam Kumar, the petitioner no. 2 made an attempt to press the complainant’s neck with an intention to cause her harm.

The  counsel for the petitioners submitted that the criminal proceeding was a gross abuse of the process of law and were liable to be quashed at the threshold because the complaint was founded on vague, omnibus and generalized allegations without attributing any specific overt act of cruelty to the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported at (2010 7 SCC 667, wherein the Court had cautioned against the tendency to implicate all family members of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of sweeping and exaggerated allegations.

The counsel for the petitioners also relief upon decision in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,reported at (2025) 3 SCC, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes cannot be sustained in the absence of specific allegations and material particulars showing active involvement of the accused persons. It was held that continuation of such proceedings amounts to misuse of criminal law.

The counsel for the petitioners relied upon Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , reported at (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the  Supreme Court recognized the rampant misuse of Section 498A IPC and emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny before subjecting the relatives of the husband to criminal prosecution, particularly when allegations were bald and unsubstantiated.

The counsel also submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution was unsustainable, as the complainant was already married to another person and no decree of divorce was placed on record. Consequently, the alleged marriage with co-accused Sumit Kumar was void-ab initio. 

The counsel relied upon Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, reported at (2025) 2 SCC 587, wherein, the Supreme Court laid down the essential ingredients of a valid marriage and held that in the absence of a legally valid subsisting marriage, prosecution for matrimonial offences is not maintainable.

Therefore, it was submitted that in the absence of a valid marriage, specific allegations of cruelty, or any material indicating harassment by the petitioners, the essential ingredients of Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were not made out. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would therefore result in grave miscarriage of justice and deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

The counsel for the state supported the impugned order taking cognizance that the Court below after considering all the materials against the petitioners took cognizance. 

The High Court noted that the "jurisdiction invoked under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly extraordinary in nature; however, it is equally well settled that such jurisdiction must be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. On a plain reading of the complaint and the statements recorded during enquiry, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioners, who are relatives of the husband, are largely vague, omnibus, and generalized in nature. Except for a broad narrative alleging harassment, the complaint does not attribute any specific role, overt act, or distinct instance of cruelty to any of the petitioners. The absence of material particulars assumes significance, particularly in matrimonial disputes where the tendency to implicate the entire family has been judicially noticed and deprecated."

In Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar fact situation, expressed serious concern over the growing misuse of matrimonial provisions by roping in distant and uninvolved relatives on the basis of exaggerated and sweeping allegations.

The Court held that criminal law should not be permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment and that courts must be cautious and circumspect while dealing with such complaints.

Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment, the High Court found that "the allegations in the present case lack the requisite specificity to justify continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners."

Justice Mishra observed:"A further crucial and undisputed aspect of the case is the categorical admission of the complainant that she had been residing separately from the petitioners for nearly three years and had never shared a household with them. This admission strikes at the very root of the allegation of cruelty. Cruelty, in the context of matrimonial offences, presupposes a degree of proximity, interaction, or cohabitation that enables harassment or ill-treatment. In the absence of any shared residence or meaningful interaction, the allegation of cruelty by the in-laws becomes inherently improbable. The admitted factual position, therefore, does not disclose any circumstance giving rise to cruelty attributable to the petitioners."

The only allegation with some degree of specificity was against petitioner no. 2, namely, Shivam Kumar, alleging an attempt to press the neck of the complainant. However, this allegation was conspicuously unsupported by any medical evidence or contemporaneous record. No injury report, hospital document, or independent corroboration was produced. More importantly, this allegation did not find mention in the initial complaint and surfaced for the first time during the enquiry through a witness statement. Such an improvement, in the absence of supporting material, renders the allegation doubtful and insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution.

Justice Mishra observed:"15. This Court also finds substantial merit in the submission that the very foundation of the prosecution is legally unsustainable. It is an admitted position that the complainant was previously married and has a minor child from the said marriage. No decree of divorce dissolving the earlier marriage has been placed on record. In the absence of dissolution of the subsisting marriage, the alleged subsequent marriage with accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab-initio in the eyes of law." He referred to Supreme Court's decision in Dolly Rani vs.Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587, had categorically held that the existence of a legally valid and subsisting marriage was a sine qua non for invoking matrimonial offences. The Court clarified that where the marriage itself is void or legally nonexistent, the very basis for prosecution under matrimonial provisions collapses. 

In this case, the absence of a valid marriage strikes at the root of the prosecution.

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 requires the coexistence of two essential ingredients: first, a legally valid marital relationship; and second, cruelty arising out of such relationship. 

Justice Mishra wrote:"This Court finds that neither of these ingredients is satisfied in the present case."

In Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr, (2025) 3 SCC, the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes cannot be permitted to continue where allegations are general, unsupported by material evidence, and disclose no active involvement of the accused. The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool of pressure or harassment.

Justice Mishra recollected that in Rajesh Sharma & Ors vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, the Supreme Court acknowledged the rampant misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and underscored the duty of courts to prevent unnecessary prosecution of relatives of the husband, particularly when allegations are bald and unsubstantiated.

He noted that the case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1)SCC 335. The matter clearly attracts the illustrative categories carved out therein, particularly where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and are manifestly attended with mala fide and abuse of the process of law. Continuation of the prosecution, in such circumstances, would serve no legitimate purpose.