Patna High Court
Govind Kumar Thakur @ Govind Kr. ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind Kumar Thakur, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging his involvement in offences under Sections 420, 120(B), 468, 471, 494 and 34 of the IPC, based on a complaint by an informant who claimed Thakur had married the informant's wife Mala without a divorce and forged documents to conceal the identity of a child. Thakur contended that he has a clean record, that the allegations are false, and that he was previously married to Madhuri, with a child born from that marriage, while the informant's claims conceal prior matrimonial disputes and complaints filed by Mala. The informant did not oppose the bail application, but the State opposed it. The court examined the factual matrix, noted the lack of concrete evidence linking Thakur to the alleged offences, and considered the purpose of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to Thakur, subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties of the same amount, and imposed conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order allows Thakur to be released if arrested or to surrender within six weeks, pending trial in the Darbhanga Sadar case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the allegations made in the FIR.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 420, 468, 471, 494
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- Indian Penal Code
- false implication
- forgery
- marriage dispute
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2152 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2023 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR District-
Darbhanga
======================================================
Govind Kumar Thakur @ Govind Kr. Thakur S/o- Late Ram Chandra Thakur
Resident of Village-Jagdar, PS- Lakhanpur, District-Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B),
468, 471, 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he is employed as the Manager in SBI and was
married to Mala on 07.02.2008, who is a Clerk in Indian Overseas
Bank, and, out of the wedlock, a child was born on 21.01.2012
whose Birth Certificate No. is 751315848. Further, Mala
performed her second marriage with Govind (petitioner) without
obtaining divorce from the informant. It is next alleged that Mala
and Govind conspired to change the identity of his son who was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2152 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/5
born on 21.01.2012 by concealing his birth certificate as well as
residence and father’s name. It is further alleged that they
produced forged document as original before the Unique
Identification Authority and procured Aadhaar Card No.
483992338463. It is next alleged that out of the illegal wedlock in
between Mala and Govind, a son was born and son of the
informant and Mala along with son of petitioner and Mala were
admitted in DPS and name of the father is recorded as Govind
(petitioner). It is next alleged that Mala in her FD account entered
the name of Govind as nominee and the informant was attacked on
06.09.2023 while he had gone to Darbhanga Court in connection
with a case, hence, apprehends threat to life and his image in the
society also got tarnished.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that relevant and correct facts
have been concealed in the FIR. It is next submitted that petitioner
married Madhuri on 05.12.2014 and a son, out of the wedlock, was
born and since the conjugal relationship deteriorated, as such, a
divorce case was filed and the marriage in between the petitioner
and Madhuri got dissolved by judgment dated 21.01.2021 in MM
No. 231 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Madhubani. It is also submitted that informant was married
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2152 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/5
to Mala and a son was born on 21.01.2012 but Mala was tortured
by the informant, hence, Mala filed Complaint Case No. 331 of
2014 dated 21.03.2014 against the informant but the case was
withdrawn on intervention of well wishers. After withdrawal of the
Complaint Case No. 331 of 2014, torture again started by the
informant, thus, Mala along with her child came to her parental
home and instituted Complaint Case No. 1786 of 2014 in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. It is further
submitted that after the Complaint Case No. 1786 of 2014 was
instituted, the informant again tried to woo Mala and promised that
he will keep her with honour and dignity, as such, Mala stopped
pursuing Complaint Case No. 1786 of 2014, hence, the informant
was acquitted in the said case but after acquittal the torture again
continued but Mala for her child, filed Mat. Case No. 78 of 2019,
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga for restituting her
conjugal rights. The informant appeared in Mat. Case No. 78 of
2019 and filed his reply and the reply was to the effect that he does
not intend to continue with the marriage. It is next submitted that
during pendency of Mat. Case No. 78 of 2019, the petitioner and
Mala came in contact and became close to each other thereafter
Mala filed Mat. Case No. 16 of 2022 seeking divorce from the
informant. It is also submitted that Mat. Case No. 16 of 2022 is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2152 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
4/5
still pending adjudication. It is fairly submitted that petitioner and
Mala are waiting for the outcome of Mat. Case No. 16 of 2022. It
is further submitted that if Mala succeeds in obtaining divorce, the
petitioner and Mala would get married. It is next submitted that
cases instituted by Mala were much prior to the present case
instituted by the informant but then all these facts have been
concealed and an impression is being given as if Mala performed
her second marriage with the petitioner without obtaining divorce
and from the said wedlock a child was born. It is asserted and
submitted that the child whom the informant alleges was born out
of the wedlock of the petitioner and Mala is a child who was born
from the wedlock of the petitioner and Madhuri. It is also
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR,
it would manifest that though informant alleges that Mala married
petitioner but then the year of marriage is not disclosed in the FIR
and that is for the reason so that the age of the child whom the
informant alleges is of the petitioner and Mala cannot be
ascertained when the fact is that the child was born from the
wedlock in between petitioner and Madhuri. It is further submitted
that relationship in between informant and Mala may have
deteriorated but then by instituting the instant case by concealing
relevant facts, the informant has tried to malign a child.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2152 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
5/5
the informant submits that he has instruction not to oppose the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
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
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 Darbhanga Sadar
(Mabbi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 394 of 2023, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…