The Court dismissed a bail modification petition seeking to treat interim maintenance paid as victim compensation. Finding no evidence of actual payment for the specified period, the Court held there was no justification to modify the prior order.
Petition dismissed without merits due to lack of evidence of maintenance payment.
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. 529 of 2020
Kanhyalal Bhagat @ Kanhaiya Bhagat
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K. Toppo, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate ------
Order No.03 Dated- 04.12.2020
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner with a prayer for modification of the order dated 16.04.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 5790 of 2018 by including the interim maintenance amount of Rs.80,000/- mentioned in the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Predecessor Judge as part of the interim victim compensation towards maintenance amount in any proceeding between the parties.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the said anticipatory bail application, the petitioner has given a sum of Rs.80,000/- in compliance of the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Predecessor Judge as victim compensation. Hence, it is submitted that the said modification be made.
Leaned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that as is evident from the order dated 14.12.2018, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.20,000/to the opposite party no.2 to show his bona fide and ultimately the petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the said maintenance was specifically for the period from December, 2018 to March, 2019 and there is no averment made by the petitioner herein that for the said four months, the petitioner has ever made any payment of maintenance to the opposite party no.2. Hence, it is submitted that this petition being without any merit be dismissed.
Considering the fact that there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner herein had paid any maintenance to the opposite party no.2
for the period from December, 2018 to March, 2019 otherwise than in terms of the order dated 14.12.2018, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to modify the order dated 16.04.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 5790 of 2018.
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-Gunjan/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of anticipatory bail should be modified to include interim maintenance amount as victim compensation given lack of proof of payment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanhyalal Bhagat @ Kanhaiya Bhagat
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
