Patna High Court
Rohit MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail with bond and conditions, including cancellation if the petitioner fails to pay maintenance for two consecutive months.
Summary
Rohit Mukhiya, facing charges under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC, applied for anticipatory bail after a prior application was withdrawn under Section 41(1)(b) of the CrPC. The dispute is matrimonial; he is the husband of Rita Kumari, with whom the relationship has broken down and a child resides with the wife. Mukhiya offered to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000 starting 1‑May‑2026 and sought bail to avoid arrest. The court, noting the parties' agreement and the State’s lack of opposition, granted anticipatory bail on condition of a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC, and stipulated that the bail could be cancelled if maintenance is not paid for two consecutive months. The order also stated that any court‑determined maintenance would supersede the agreed amount.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite pending serious IPC offences.
- Whether the court can impose a condition of payment of matrimonial maintenance as part of anticipatory bail.
- Whether anticipatory bail may be cancelled on failure to comply with the maintenance condition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- matrimonial dispute
- maintenance
- IPC offences
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 41 CrPC
- domestic violence
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2647 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2023 Thana- MANIGACHI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Rohit Mukhiya son of Ramesh Mukhiya Resident of Village- Ramanli, Ps-
Bahera, Dist- Darbhanga, At present Village- Adhloam, Ps- Bahera, Dist-
Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rita Kumari wife of Rohit Mukhiya Resident of Village- Katma, Ps-
Manigachhi, Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey,
Mr. Saurav Anand, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the OP No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail
by filing Cr. Misc No. 13943 of 2025 and the same was
permitted to be withdrawn as notice under Section 41(1)(b)
Cr.P.C was given to the petitioner. It is next submitted that
thereafter police submitted charge-sheet based on which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2647 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
cognizance came to be taken hence petitioner apprehends arrest.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
dispute is matrimonial and petitioner is the husband. It is fairly
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 also submitted that petitioner
being husband is aware of his responsibility towards the OP
No.2 and the child, who presently is residing with the OP No. 2,
as such petitioner is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of
Rs. 4,000/- to the OP No. 2, which shall commence from 1-5-
2026.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No.
2 submits that it might be a ploy of the petitioner to seek
anticipatory bail and after obtaining anticipatory bail, the
monthly maintenance as agreed may not be credited in the
account of the OP No. 2, 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 the
petitioner breaches the undertaking given before this Court, it is
further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2647 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
to the petitioner and subsequently if the petitioner does not pay
the amount of maintenance, in that event, his anticipatory bail
shall be liable to be cancelled, on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that since
petitioner is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.
4,000/-, as such no useful purpose would be served by sending
the petitioner to jail as chances of future reconciliation will also
get marred.
6. The learned counsel for the OP No. 2 also submits
that he will WhatsApp the bank account number of the OP No. 2
on the WhatsApp number of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes
to communicate the same to the petitioner so that the monthly
maintenance commences from 1-5-2026.
7. Learned APP also does not oppose the anticipatory
bail application in view of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
8. Considering the submission made by 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 Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2647 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Manigachhi PS Case No. 198 of 2023, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. 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.
10. It is further made clear that the present
maintenance shall stop, if a court of competent jurisdiction fixes
the maintenance.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…