Petitioner sought modification of anticipatory bail ordered conditionally to maintain his wife, arguing he had paid a separate sum for maintenance. The court dismissed the petition, holding the bail order mandated conjugal duty, not monetary payment, and thus required no modification.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1130 of 2020
------ Onkar Mishra … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … 2. Neelu Kumari (Mishra) Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Singh, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
------
Order No.04 Dated- 06.11.2020
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for modification of the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.15 of 2019.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 16.01.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.15 of 2019 the petitioner was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail with condition that the petitioner will keep and maintain the opposite party no.2 as his lawful wife with full dignity and honour. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner along with his wife went to the place of posting of the petitioner but the opposite party no.2 was tutored by her parents to create hindrance in the conjugal life between the parties and not to live with the petitioner. Hence, the opposite party no.2 again instituted false case against the petitioner and called the local police and after calling her parents, the opposite party no.2 lodged the complaint at Mahila police station and left the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 herein filed Cr.M.P. No.
807 of 2019 for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. On 27.09.2019, in the said Cr.M.P. No. 807 of 2019, the petitioner herein who was the opposite party no.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 807 of 2019, submitted before this Court that he will file a demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn in favour of the opposite party no.2 herein and consequent upon such submission by the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein was directed to remain present in the court with the said demand draft on 24.01.2020 and ultimately on 24.01.2020, the petitioner herein handed over the demand draft of Rs.9,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 of this case and on 28.02.2020 he handed over another demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 of this case and after receiving the same amount, the opposite party no.2 of this case who was the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 807 of 2019 withdrew the said Cr.M.P. No.807 of 2019 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 has also filed a maintenance case and as the petitioner had paid the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 for the maintenance of opposite party no.2, hence the said order in A.B.A. No.15 of 2019 be modified.
Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that no order has been passed in A.B.A. No.15 of 2019 to pay any money and the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 807 of 2019 has not been challenged nor the modification of the same has been sought herein and the same has attained the finality and at this stage it is not open to be reviewed by this Court. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
Perusal of the record reveals that in terms of the order passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.15 of 2019, the petitioner is already on bail and no order has been passed
in A.B.A. No.15 of 2019 directing the petitioner herein to pay any money hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justification to modify the said order dated 16.01.2019 in the A.B.A. No. 15 of 2019. Accordingly, this petition being without merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Pappu/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail order granting privileges of maintaining the opposite party as lawful wife can be modified to include a monetary payment of maintenance.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to modify the bail order on the ground that he had already paid a lump sum amount under a separate maintenance proceeding.
Whether an application to modify bail conditioned on conjugal duties has merit where no direct order for monetary payment exists in the bail order.
Onkar Mishra
The State of Jharkhand
Neelu Kumari (Mishra)
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
