Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. JamalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a monetary payment undertaking and standard bail conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Md Jamal, husband of Shabina Khatoon, feared arrest in a case involving multiple IPC offences including dowry harassment. He denied the allegations and offered to pay Rs.3,000 per month as temporary relief to the opposite party. The court, after mediation failed, considered his undertaking and the seriousness of the charges. It granted bail conditioned on a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. The conditions required the petitioner to deposit the monthly amount into the opposite party's bank account, with bail cancellation if payments were missed for two consecutive months. The order also noted that the bail does not preclude any future matrimonial or maintenance proceedings.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriateness of granting bail under Section 438(2) CrPC in a case involving serious IPC offences?
  • Can the court impose monetary payment conditions as part of bail?
  • Whether the bail can be cancelled upon non‑compliance with the payment conditions?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • dowry harassment
  • IPC sections 341, 323, 307, 498-A, 379, 504, 506/34
  • temporary relief
  • mediation failure
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Section 482 B.N.S.S.

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2203 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Jamal Son of Md Abbas R/o Village- Raghopur West Ward No. 04,
                 Police Station -Jurawanpur District- Vaishali

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Shabina Khatoon D/O- Najir Alam Resident of Village- Station Road
                 Hajipur Oposite old Bus dipo, P.S.- Hajipur - Vaishali

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner       :        Mr.Md Soban Asghar
                 For the State            :        Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur
                 For the OP-2             :        Mr. Priyesh Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   16-01-2026                        Pursuant to order of this Court, the matter was

                   referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of Patna High

                   Court, but the dispute between the parties could not be resolved

                   through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed.

                                2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant /

                   opposite party no. 2.

                                3. The petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no.

                   2, apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences

                   under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498-A, 379, 504 & 506/34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                                4. Petitioner is alleged to have committed torture and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2203 of 2025(5) dt.16-01-2026
                                            2/3




          harassment with opposite party no. 2 for dowry.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner denies the allegation made in the present petition and

          submits that he never committed torture to opposite party no. 2

          or demanded any dowry. However, the petitioner undertakes to

          give Rs. 3,000/-per month by way of temporary relief/solace,

          starting from this month, to the opposite party no.2.

                       6. In view of the undertaking of learned counsel for

          the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give temporary

          relief/solace of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) per month

          to the opposite party no. 2, in the event of arrest/surrender

          within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above-named

          petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Hajipur at Vaishali in

          connection with Hajipur Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2023,

          subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the

          Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. as well

          as on the following conditions:-

                       “(1) Opposite party no. 2 would file an affidavit
                            before the court below and bring on record her
                            savings       bank      account   number   for   its
                            communication to the petitioner.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2203 of 2025(5) dt.16-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  (2) Petitioner would deposit the aforesaid amount
                                       per month in the savings bank account of the
                                       opposite party no. 2.
                                  (3) In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the
                                       aforesaid amount for two consecutive months,
                                       the court below would be at liberty to cancel
                                       the bail-bond.
                                  (4) The aforementioned payment will be subject to
                                       any order passed in matrimonial, maintenance
                                       or connected proceedings. The present order, in
                                       no way, will preclude the parties to resolve the
                                       issue otherwise.”



                                                      (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.