Supreme Court stays order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a family dispute case

In Chandramohan Kumar & Anr. vs. 1. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 2-page long order dated June 16, 2026. The order reads: "4. The condition imposed by the impugned order is stayed until further orders, subject to the petitioner depositing or paying Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today towards legal expenses for the present case." The respondent no. 2 is Aarti Kumari. Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed the 3-page long impugned order dated February 17, 2026.  

Earlier, Justice Kumar had concluded; "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." He added: "7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st class, East Muzaffarpur/ concerned court below in connection with Minapur Case No. 117 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 482 of the BNSS. 8. As a condition of this order, the petitioner is directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- from the month of February, 2026 to the informant and the maintenance for the month of February, 2026 shall be paid to the informant 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." 

Justice Kumar made it clear that the order of maintenance passed by the High Court shall be subject to the outcome of maintenance case of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court concerned, if any.

The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Minapur P.S Case No.117 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 126(2),115 (2), 109, 85, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners were husband and devar of the informant. It was alleged that the petitioners and other family members started demanding Rs, 3 lakh and one motorycle. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners were innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. There was no specific allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners have got clean antecedent. 

  

Supreme Court reverses pre-arrest bail rejection order by Justice Purnendu Singh

In Praween Barnawal @ Praween Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025),Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 4-page long order dated November 6, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''....the interim protection granted by this Court on 18.09.2025 is made absolute and it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail, provided he continues to cooperate in the investigation.'' It disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR of 2024 dated December 30, 2024, which was rejected by the High Court and the courts below.During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated September 18, 2025 and it was provided that if the petitioner joins the investigation and cooperates with the Investigating Officer (IO), no coercive steps shall be taken against him. The petitioner joined the investigation and was found cooperating with the IO.

Earlier, in Praween Barnawal @ Praween Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court passed a 3-page long order dated August 20, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that though it is not specific in the FIR, as to whether, the demand of dowry was made just before the alleged murder took place, however, considering the fact that certain amount was transferred through RTGS into the account of the petitioner just before the marriage on 03.02.2022 and the marriage had taken place on 10.02.2022 and it is evident that after commission of murder, the dead body was hanged and the door was locked from outside, I don’t find that in any manner the complicity of the petitioner can be denied. I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.'' 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. case of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 3(5) of the BNS. According to the allegation made in the FIR, for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the petitioner along with other co-accused committed murder of the daughter of the informant. The deceased was found hanging in a close room which was locked from outside. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner was younger brother of the husband of the deceased and he was a student and had no connection with the matrimonial affairs between the husband and the wife and due to some difference, the petitioner who was not present at the time of alleged offence was implicated in the  case on the ground that certain amount was transferred through RTGS into the account of the petitioner just before the marriage took place which was deposited willingly by the father of the deceased. The counsel also submitted that for similar allegation, other co-accused was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court vide order dated April 30, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.22663 of 2025. The petitioner had clean antecedent and sought pre-arrest bail.

Abhlasha Jha, the counsel on behalf of the informant had vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. She submitted that the entire family including the petitioner had committed murder of the daughter of the informant and after commission of murder, the dead body was hanged and the door was locked from outside and, as such, the complicity of the petitioner cannot be denied in the alleged murder. APP for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.