Patna High Court
Mohammad Hussain @ MohammadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Petitioner Mohammad Hussain applied for anticipatory bail in a complaint (No.423/2022) involving offences under IPC sections 323, 379, 504, 498A and the Domestic Violence Act sections 3 and 4. The case had been referred to mediation, which failed, and both parties missed scheduled court appearances. The petitioner argued that his marriage to Naheda Khatoon is subsisting, while the opposite party’s marriage to Sabir Alam is void, and asserted he would not abscond and would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, but could not rebut the petitioner’s contentions regarding the marital status of the opposite party. The court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC, ordering release within six weeks of arrest or surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving offences under IPC 323, 379, 504, 498A and DP Act sections 3 and 4.
- Whether the alleged void marriage of the opposite party affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to appear earlier and the failed mediation impact bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 498A, 504
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- Domestic Violence Act
- mediation
- void marriage
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54737 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-423 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District-
Kishanganj
======================================================
Mohammad Hussain @ Mohammad Son of Jalal Malmali @ Jalal Resident of
village - Lohagarha, Ward No.5, P.S. - Kodhobari, District - Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Salukha Praveen Wife of Mohammad @ Mohammad Hussain Resident of
village - Lohagarha, Ward No.5, P.S. - Kodhabadi, District - Kishanganj
Presently resident at Vill. - Singhimari, P.S. - Kodhobari, DIst. - Kishanganj
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379,
504, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
D.P. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case was referred for mediation but then mediation failed,
thereafter an attempt was made to resolve the dispute amicably
as such by order dated 28.04.2026, the petitioner and the O.P.
No.2 were directed to remain physically present before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54737 of 2025(7) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
Court on 04.05.2026 but then on the said date neither petitioner
nor the O.P. No.2 were present, as such one more indulgence
were sought, it is next submitted that thereafter the case was
fixed for today. It is further submitted that today the petitioner is
present but the O.P. No.2 is not present.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is married to Naheda Khatoon and O.P. No.2 was
married to Sabir Alam. It is next submitted that neither the
petitioner gave divorce to Naheda Khatoon nor O.P. No.2 gave
divorce to Sabir Alam but then they performed their marriage as
such the marriage itself is void. It is also submitted that
petitioner is staying with Naheda Khatoon while O.P. No.2 is
staying with Sabir Alam. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioner but then the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that O.P.No.2 was married to Sabir Alam and they are
still in a conjugal relationship and have not divorced each other.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54737 of 2025(7) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Complaint Case No.423/2022, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.