Patna High Court
Md. Faiz @ Md. Fariduddin HaqueversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Faiz (also known as Md. Fariduddin Haque), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a dowry harassment case (IPC Sec. 498 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sec. 4) filed in 2019. The prosecution alleged that he demanded dowry and tortured his wife, and also raised the issue of three children born out of wedlock. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the children reside with him, while the complainant’s counsel claimed otherwise. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the High Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond, two sureties, and conditions including payment of monthly maintenance to the wife and verification of the children’s residence. The order also stipulated that if the lower court finds the children are not staying with the petitioner, the bail bond will be rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted in a case involving alleged dowry harassment under IPC Sec. 498 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sec. 4.
- Whether the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar apply to the present application.
- What conditions, if any, may be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail, including maintenance and verification of child residence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- maintenance order
- child custody
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80791 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - JHANJHARPUR
District- Madhubani
======================================================
Md. Faiz @ Md. Fariduddin Haque son of Late Kari Basruddin Village-
Kokodha ps -sakatpur, Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar bihar
2. Afsana Khatoon Wife of Md. Faiz @ Md. Fariduddin Haque Village
-kakodha ps- sakatpur, Dist- Darbhanga At P/A- D/o- Md. Babul village-
khor Madanpur, ps- Bheja, Dist- madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Jhanjharpur C.R. Case No. 237 of 2019 instituted under Sections 498
of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner is the husband of
the complainant and the allegation against him is of demand of
dowry and torture and there are three children born out of the
wedlock.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the children are staying with petitioner whereas the learned counsel
for the complainant has submitted that the children are staying with
the complainant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80791 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
5. Considering the submission of the parties and in view
of the law down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, this
application of grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.
6. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the concerned Court below within four
weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M, Jhanjhapur, Disrict-
Madhubani in connection with Jhanjharpur C.R. Case No. 237 of
2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C/
Section 482 of the B.N.S.S.
7. As a condition of this order, the petitioner is directed to
pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- for maintenance of his wife
from the month of February, 2026 to the informant and the
maintenance for the month of February, 2026 shall be paid to the
informant within one week from the date of pronouncement of this
order and thereafter the maintenance amount shall be paid to the
informant every month before the 10th day of the month.
8. It is made clear that the order of maintenance passed by
this Court shall be subject to the outcome of maintenance case of the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court concerned, if any.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80791 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
9. At the time of furnishing of bail bond, the petitioner has
to satisfy the court below as to whether the children are staying with
him or not.
10. If the court below finds that children are not staying
with the petitioner, the bail bonds of the petitioner shall not be
accepted.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…