Patna High Court
Poonam Kumari @ Punam KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the magistrate must verify compliance with the bail condition and cancel the anticipatory bail if the condition has not been fulfilled.
Summary
The petitioner, Poonam Kumari, sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Brajesh Kumar (Opposite Party No.2) on the ground that he failed to comply with the court‑imposed condition of paying monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000. The High Court noted that only a single payment was made in November 2022 and no further deposits were made despite the explicit direction. The Court observed that the trial magistrate had not acted on the petitioner's application for cancellation and could not keep the matter pending indefinitely. Consequently, the Court disposed of the application, directing the magistrate to verify compliance with the bail condition and, if non‑compliance is found, to cancel the bail bonds forthwith. The magistrate is required to submit a compliance report within two weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party should be cancelled for failure to pay the stipulated maintenance.
- Whether the trial magistrate can indefinitely postpone consideration of the petition for cancellation of bail.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 341, 343, 498A, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail conditions
- maintenance payment
- cancellation of bail
- non‑compliance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2430 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Poonam Kumari @ Punam Kumari D/o Bineeshwari Yadav R/o Vill. -
Koilawan, P.S. - Haspura, Dist. - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Brajesh Kumar Son of Ramchandra Prasad R/o Village - Bambai, P.S. -
Mehandia, Dist. - Arwal. Presently residing at Rameshwar Nagar, Manpuri,
Raipur(Chhatishgarh).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priya Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 09-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application has been filed seeking
cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Opposite Party
No. 2 vide order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
69862 of 2021 arising out of Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 198 of
2021, registered under Sections 341, 343, 506, 498A and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Opposite Party No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail subject to the
condition that he would regularly pay maintenance of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2430 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
2/3
3,000/- per month to the petitioner. It is further submitted that
O.P. No. 2 deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in the bank account of
the petitioner towards maintenance for the month of November,
2022, solely for the purpose of securing acceptance of his bail
bond before the learned court below and after the acceptance of
the bail bond by the learned court below, the O.P. No. 2 has not
deposited a single rupee towards maintenance in the petitioner's
bank account, despite the specific direction of this Court
requiring him to deposit Rs. 3,000/- per month regularly. It is
also submitted that despite such non-compliance, the application
filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court seeking
cancellation of the bail bonds of Opposite Party No. 2 is not
being disposed by the Trial Court.
4. If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner
is found to be correct, the bail bonds of Opposite Party No. 2
ought to have been cancelled by the Magistrate concerned long
ago. The Magistrate concerned cannot indefinitely keep the
petition pending awaiting a reply or for any other reason when
there is an apparent breach of the condition imposed by this
Court while granting anticipatory bail.
5. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate concerned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2430 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
3/3
to verify whether Opposite Party No. 2 has complied with the
conditions imposed by this Court in its order dated 16.11.2022.
In the event it is found that the said order has not been complied
with, the learned Magistrate shall cancel the bail bonds of
Opposite Party No. 2 forthwith, in accordance with law.
6. The learned Magistrate concerned shall submit a
compliance report to this Court within a period of two weeks
from today.
7. List this case after two weeks for perusal of the
compliance report.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad through FAX
or e-mail for immediate compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.