Patna High Court
Aman Kumar Mishra @ Ravinder MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bail‑bond conditions and a maintenance undertaking.
Summary
Aman Kumar Mishra, a Havildar in the Assam Rifles, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated by his wife in a dowry demand and assault case. He asserted that the marital relationship had broken down, he had filed for judicial separation, and he was willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000 from 20‑04‑2026. The wife’s counsel agreed to the maintenance but suggested the bail application might be a ploy, while also stating that failure to pay could justify cancellation of bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, and allowed the wife to seek cancellation if maintenance is not paid for two consecutive months. The order also noted that any future maintenance fixed by a competent court would supersede the interim arrangement.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious charges under the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to pay maintenance can be a condition for the continuance of anticipatory bail
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- marital dispute
- maintenance
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18873 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Aman Kumar Mishra @ Ravinder Mishra Son of Awadh Kumar Mishra
Resident of Village- IM Type Sindiri, P.S.- Baliyapur, District- Dhanbad,
Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Juhi Mishra D/o Late Ram Prakash Uphadyay, Wife of Aman Kumar Mishra
Resident of Village- Babhangawan, P.S.- Krishnagarh, District- Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest
in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 85, 3(5), 74, 79 of the BNS and
Sections 3/4 of the D. P. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the informant with general and omnibus
allegation of demand of dowry and assault. It is next submitted
that within an year of marriage, the relationship in between the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18873 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/4
petitioner and the opposite party no.2 has deteriorated to an
extent where it is not possible to revive the conjugal
relationship. It is next submitted that petitioner has filed an
application for judicial separation. It is also submitted that
petitioner is a Havildar in Assam Rifles but then his services
came to be suspended as the instant FIR was instituted against
him. It is further submitted that petitioner being husband is
aware of his responsibility till a decision in the judicial
separation case is not taken and thus is willing to pay a monthly
maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month which shall commence
from 20.04.2026.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 submits that it might be a ploy of the
petitioner to seek anticipatory bail, thus has agreed to pay a
monthly maintenance of Rs.7000/-, on which, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
petitioner is aware of the consequences which would entail in
the event if petitioner breaches the undertaking given to this
Court. It is also asserted and submitted that if petitioner will not
pay the monthly maintenance, as agreed, in that event, if
anticipatory bail is granted, the same shall be liable to be
cancelled. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18873 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/4
the O.P. No.2 submits that when petitioner is willing to pay a
monthly maintenance, as such, no useful purpose would be
served by sending the petitioner to jail as chances of future
reconciliation will also get marred. It is also submitted that may
be with passage of time and on intervention of well-wishers, the
parties may resolve their dispute amicably. It is next submitted
that the Bank account number of the opposite party no.2 shall be
whatsapped on the whatsapp number of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner undertakes to communicate
the same to the petitioner, so that the monthly maintenance as
agreed commences from the 20.04.2026.
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, is directed to be released on bail
on his furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Bhojpur, Ara in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No.81 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
6. However, it is made clear that the opposite party
no.2 shall be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18873 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
4/4
of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, in the event, if the
petitioner does not credit the monthly maintenance, as agreed
for two consecutive months.
7. It is further made clear that if the Court of
competent jurisdiction fixes the maintenance, the present
maintenance shall stop.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…