Patna High Court
Sujeet Kumar Mishra @ Sujeet MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar Mishra, sought anticipatory bail in a complaint (No. 826 of 2023) alleging offences under IPC sections 498A, 504, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4, filed by his wife Suman Mishra. The wife claimed dowry harassment and that she was thrown out of the house, leading to health deterioration. The parties had earlier reached an amicable settlement for the sake of their daughter, with the petitioner offering to pay Rs. 10,000 monthly into the wife’s bank account. The State opposed the bail, arguing that separate FIRs and the pending complaint precluded relief. The Court, after considering the settlement offer and conditions, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, subject to strict compliance with payment and conduct conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in view of the pending complaint and related FIRs.
- Whether the petitioner’s offer to pay a monthly amount and other conditions justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498A
- Section 438 CrPC
- bail conditions
- family dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52532 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-826 Year-2023 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar Mishra @ Sujeet Mishra Son of Shambhu Nath Mishra @
Shambhu Mishra village- Pinjroin, Po- Ramasadh, Ps- Sandesh, Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suman Mishra @ Suman Devi Wife of Sujeet Mishra Village- Dhamniya,
Ps- Agiaon, (Garhani), Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the
petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Namrata Dubey and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bhojpur Complaint Case No. 826 (c) of 2023
for the offence under sections 498A, 504 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
lodged by the informant, Suman Mishra.
3. As per the complaint, the lady alleged that the
marriage took place in the year 2016 but the in-laws always
tortured her for dowry. In between, the couple was blessed with
a daughter but the torture continued ultimately led to the
deterioration of her health. In the year 2023, she was forcibly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52532 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/4
thrown out of the house which followed the complaint.
4. In this case, the Coordinate Bench had issued
notice to the opposite party no. 2, appearance is there through
Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh but today on call, no one is there to
make submission on behalf of the said opposite party no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the present complaint case, the parties came to an amicable
settlement for the sake of eight years old daughter, the lady
returned home and they were living happily. However, once
again, she went out of the house in the year 2024 after minor
scuffle which led to case and counter-case, one by the lady vide
Sandesh P.S. Case No. 278 of 2024 and the other by the
petitioner himself vide Sandesh P.S. Case No. 280 of 2024.
6. The submission is that though for the sake of the
daughter, he wanted to continue the relationship but the attitude
of the lady makes him feel uncomfortable and expects some
unforeseen circumstance which may ruin his future. However,
he knows about his responsibility and for the present, since the
lady alongwith her daughter are living separately, he being a
contractual employee with the Minor Irrigation Department,
Bihar, Patna wants to contribute Rs. 8,000/- for the lady and Rs.
2,000/- for the daughter (totalling Rs. 10,000/-) which will go in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52532 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/4
her bank account by tenth of every month and if he fails, the
lady shall be free to take steps for cancellation of the bail bond
if relief is granted.
7. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
two cases have been filed, one the present complaint case and
other the 2024 FIR which the petitioner has narrated, in that
background, he is not entitled for the relief.
8. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
as also the materials on record, allegation is there, petitioner has
also filed a case, on his own, he is ready to part away Rs.
10,000/- for the family (Wife and Daughter) which will go in the
bank account of the lady by tenth of every month, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
9. However, if the petitioner fails to pay the amount in
her bank account by tenth of every month, the lady shall be free
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bond.
10. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event
of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Civil
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52532 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
4/4
Court, Ara in connection with Bhojpur Complaint Case No. 826
(c) of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter I.D. Card/Pan Card/Driving
License) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…