Supreme Court sets aside order by Patna High Court imposing condition of Rs 10,000/month in absence of any order of the competent court granting such maintenance

In Rakesh Mahto @ Rakesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026),   Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi September 03, 2026 passed a 5-page long order dated September 3, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "6. In our view, the impugned condition ought not to have been imposed in absence of any order of the competent court granting such maintenance. As we have been informed that the application seeking maintenance is pending, and no orders have yet been passed directing the appellant to pay maintenance, we deem it appropriate to set aside the aforesaid condition. 7. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 

Earlier, in Rakesh Mahto @ Rakesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated February 26, 2026, wherein, he had concluded that "7. 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 anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Siwan,/concerned Court below in connection with Siwan Mahila P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 482(2) of the BNSS and with further condition that: (I). The petitioner is directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the month of February 2026 to the complainant/informant." 

Justice Kumar's order reads:"The maintenance for the month of February 2026 shall be paid to the complainant/informant within ten days from today, and thereafter, the maintenance amount shall be paid to the complainant /informant every month before the 10th day of each month.” 8. It is made clear that the order of maintenance passed by this Court shall be subject to the outcome of the maintenance case in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court concerned, if any. 9. 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." The opposite no. 2 is Punita Kumari, daughter of Panalal Mahto Resident of village Nonia Tola, Goreakothi, Siwan. 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 85, 82(1), 316(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are accused of assaulting and torturing the victim for demand of Rs. 50,000/- as a dowry. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and he had falsely been implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner of demand of dowry. The petitioner has clean antecedent.