Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted subject to a bail bond, sureties, and the condition of paying interim maintenance, with provision for cancellation on non‑payment.
Summary
Nitish Kumar, the petitioner, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC, alleging that his wife (OP No.2) had falsely implicated him. He claimed marital breakdown, loss of employment, and expressed willingness to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000 to his wife and child. The State opposed the bail, while the wife did not appear. The court, considering the petitioner's offer of maintenance and the matrimonial nature of the dispute, granted anticipatory bail on condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The court also allowed the wife to seek cancellation of the bail if the petitioner fails to pay maintenance for two consecutive months, and noted that any court‑determined maintenance would supersede the interim arrangement.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a husband accused under Section 498A who claims false implication and offers maintenance to his wife.
- Whether the court can condition anticipatory bail on the payment of interim maintenance and allow cancellation of bail for non‑payment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- maintenance
- marital dispute
- false implication
- CrPC Section 438
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17059 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-901 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Nitish Kumar Son of Late Ramanand Pandit Resident of village-
Chaknawada, Ps- Dalsingsarai, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anamika Kumari Wife of Nitish Kumar Resident of village- Chaknawada,
Ps- Dalsingsarai, Dist- Samastipur AT present Shri jai Prakash Pandit @ Om
prakash Pandit, Resident of village- Katarmala, Ps- Dandari, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Hussamuddin Azad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State and no one appears on behalf of the OP No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the OP No. 2. It is next submitted that the
petitioner and the OP No. 2 were married on 14-12-2020 and out
of the wedlock, a child was born, who presently is staying with
the OP No. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
working with Nippon Company but on account of institution of
the instant case, his job was terminated and petitioner presently is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17059 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
unemployed. It is also submitted that presently the relationship in
between the petitioner and the OP No. 2 has soured to an extent
where it is not possible to revive the conjugal relationship, but
with passage of time and on intervention of well-wishers, the
parties may resolve their dispute amicably. It is submitted that
petitioner being husband is aware of his responsibility towards
his wife and the child, who presently is residing with the OP No.
2, but since presently he is out of job hence would not be in a
position to maintain them in the manner he was maintaining
when he was doing the job, but it is submitted that petitioner is
willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the OP
No. 2, which shall commence from 20-4-2026.
4. Learned APP also fairly submits that since petitioner
is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-, as such
no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to
jail moreso when the dispute is matrimonial and if the petitioner
is sent to judicial custody, chances of future reconciliation will
also get marred.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17059 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
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.
901 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
6. However, it is made clear that OP No. 2 shall be at
liberty to file an application before this court seeking
cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, in
the event if the petitioner does not deposit the monthly
maintenance as agreed for two consecutive months.
7. It is further made clear that the present maintenance
shall stop, if a court of competent jurisdiction fixes the
maintenance.
8. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 in the
learned trial court for its onward communication to the OP No. 2.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…