Neetu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23484 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2025 Thana- Dhrampura District- Rohtas ====================================================== Neetu Kumari W/O Prabhat Kumar Resident of Village- Nonsari, P.SDharampura, Distt.- Rohtas, State- Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Prabhat Kumar S/O Late Ram Narayan Ram R/O Nunsari, P.S- Dhrampura, Distt.- Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saurav Barial, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2, who is the husband of the petitioner, by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.1495 of 2025, in connection with Dharampura P.S. Case No.49 of 2025.

3.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 02 has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail without appreciating the facts of the case and without considering the fact that the petitioner is a young woman who has no means to support herself. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is struggling to make ends meet. It has lastly been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was not heard before passing the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23484 of 2026(2) dt.14-07-2026 2/2 impugned order.

4.

I have perused the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2 and considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case and further there is no illegality and infirmity warranting interference from this Court.

5.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the Principle Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram is directed to dispose of the Maintenance Case no. 88 of 25, within three months from today. The Principle Judge, Family Court, Sasaram at Rohtas shall proceed ex-parte against the opposite party no. 2 in case of non-cooperation. 6.

Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, forthwith, through FAX or e-mail for its compliance. (Sandeep Kumar, J) aarti/- U T