Patna High Court
Mohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail must be granted, subject to specified conditions, in accordance with the precedent set by Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging torture and dowry demand. The prosecution alleged these offences, while the second opposite party, Mukta Deep, claimed she was not employed. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, a requirement to cooperate with investigation, and a monthly maintenance payment of Rs.10,000 to the informant. The maintenance order was made conditional on any pending family court proceedings. The Court warned that non‑compliance could lead to cancellation of bail. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Principal Judge of the Family Court.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS in view of the allegations under Section 85 BNSS and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the imposition of a maintenance payment as a condition of bail is permissible.
- Whether the allegations of torture and dowry demand justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 482, 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry prohibition
- torture
- maintenance order
- Section 85 BNSS
- Section 438 CrPC
- family court
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90962 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya
======================================================
Mohit Kumar S/o Arjun Prasad Baranwal @ Arjun Prasad R/o Mohalla -
Janakpur, P.S.- Muffasil, Diat- Gaya ji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mukta Deep D/o Uday Prasad Barnawal, W/o Mohit Kumar R/o Mohalla -
Khusboo Bhawan, Janakpur, P.s.- Muphasil, Distt.- Gaya Ji, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Animesh Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection
with Gaya Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 instituted under
Sections 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioner is of torture and demand of dowry.
4. Both the parties have appeared but the parties
could not settle their dispute. It appears that both the parties are
quite well educated and were working in Bangalore and Delhi.
5. Now the opposite party no. 2 says that she is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90962 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
2/3
working.
6. Considering the submission of the parties and in
view of the law laid 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.
7. Let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of
his arrest, be released forthwith on bail, on furnishing a bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer or Investigating Officer or the jurisdictional S.H.O.
concerned, in connection with Gaya Mahila P.S. Case 43 of
2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438
(2) of the Cr.P.C. / 482 of the BNSS and further to the condition
that the petitioner shall join investigation and shall fully
cooperate in the investigation/trial, failing which the concerned
court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
8. As a condition of this order, the petitioner is
directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the
month of February, 2026 to the informant and the maintenance
for the month of February, 2026 shall be paid to the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90962 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
3/3
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.
9. 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.
10. Needless to state that, if the petitioner fails to
abide by the terms and conditions, as stated hereinabove, the
State shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application, before
the learned concerned Court below, for cancellation of bail
granted to the petitioner.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the Principal Judge, Family Court concerned through FAX or e-
mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…