Patna High Court
Kaisar Alam @ Kesar AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to a bond, sureties and compliance with maintenance payment conditions.
Summary
Kaisar Alam applied for anticipatory bail in a case filed under Sections 498A, 420, 120B, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging false implication by his wife Rukhsana Khatun. The wife had obtained a maintenance order of Rs.5,000 per month, leading to arrears of Rs.1,20,000, of which the petitioner had paid Rs.20,000 and promised to clear the remaining arrears by 15 October 2026 while continuing monthly payments. Both parties agreed that the petitioner’s detention would not serve any useful purpose and the wife did not oppose the bail. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the CrPC, granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to the condition that the petitioner must pay maintenance as agreed, failing which the bail may be cancelled. The application was allowed, and the bail order was conditioned on compliance with the maintenance obligations.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in offences including 498A, 420, 120B, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether pending maintenance arrears and the marital dispute affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the Court can impose conditions linking bail to payment of maintenance.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 498A, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- maintenance
- marital dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 498A
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12627 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1107 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Kaisar Alam @ Kesar Alam son of Minhaj R/o village - Gaiyari, Ward no 05,
P.S. -Araria District -Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rukhsana Khatun Daughter of Enulhak Resident of village- Madarganj,
simraha, Ps- simraha, Dist- Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
Mr.Rohit Kumar
Mr.Kumar Ravish
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the
D.P. Act, while the case was filed under Sections 498(A), 420,
120(B) and 506 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted
that presently the relationship has soured to an extent where it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12627 of 2026(5) dt.09-04-2026
2/4
not possible to revive conjugal relationship, but then, with
passage of time and on intervention of well-wishers, the parties
may resolve their dispute amicably.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
opposite party no.2 had filed an application seeking
maintenance in the Court of the learned Family Court, Araria
and the learned Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay a
monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- with effect from 11.03.2024.
It is submitted that since petitioner was facing finance crunch as
such the amount could not be paid, hence the arrear mounted to
Rs.1,20,000/-. It is next submitted that petitioner has paid an
amount of Rs.20,000/- towards arrear to the opposite party no.2
and has also paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of monthly
maintenance commencing from April,2026. It is next submitted
that petitioner will clear the arrear maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/-
by 15th of October, 2026, but then, petitioner will keep paying
Rs.5,000/- by way of monthly maintenance.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 also submits that no useful purpose would
be served by sending the petitioner to jail when petitioner has
paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards arrear maintenance and
Rs.5,000/- towards current maintenance. It is also submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12627 of 2026(5) dt.09-04-2026
3/4
since petitioner has agreed to clear the arrear maintenance by
15th October, 2026, as such, the opposite party no.2 is not
opposing the anticipatory bail application.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-
bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor Court in
connection with Complaint Case No.1107C of 2018, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the opposite party no.2 shall be
at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail of the petitioner, in the event, if the petitioner
does not pay the monthly maintenance as agreed for two
consecutive months and also if the petitioner does not clear the
arrear maintenance by 15th of October, 2026.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12627 of 2026(5) dt.09-04-2026
4/4
Checking your session…