Sunil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar, Through The … on 14 November, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2030 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SIWAN

Sunil Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Yogendra Singh, Resident of Village – Sarna Gulami
Rai Ka Tola, P.O. – Biswaniya, P.S. – Darauli, District – Siwan
…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, New
Sachivalay, Patna.

2. Smt. Sunita Rai, D/o Sri Dhruv Deo Rai, Village – Semariya, P.O. – Semariya,
P.S. – Nautan, Dist. – Siwan
…. …. Respondents

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, S.C. VIII

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 14-11-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ application has been preferred for setting

aside the conditional order dated 18.07.2017 whereby anticipatory

bail has been granted to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge,

Siwan in A.B.P. No. 170 of 2017 in connection with Complaint Case

No. 637 of 2013 brought by the wife of the petitioner against the

petitioner and other relations for offences under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and other offences of the Indian Penal Code as

well as Dowry Prohibition Act.

The bail was granted with condition that the

petitioner, who is doing job in Indian Navy, would pay Rs.15,000/- as

interim maintenance to the wife as well as the only son who is school

going.

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2030 of 2017 dt.14-11-2017

2/2

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

similar matter was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Munish

Bhasin Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

Another reported in 2009(4) SCC 45 and it was held that the Court

considering the prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should not travel

beyond the requirement of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

nor should impose onerous condition.

According to the learned counsel, the order of grant

interim maintenance is not a condition required by Section 438

Cr.P.C., hence, the same is bad in law.

Considering the nature of relationship between the

parties and nature of the order, this Court is not inclined to interfere in

the matter. However, the matter is being sent to the court below to

consider the prayer of the petitioner in the light of the judgment

aforesaid.

With the aforesaid observation, this application

stands disposed of.

(Birendra Kumar, J)
Kundan/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.11.2017
Transmission 16.11.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *