Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Jul 2022CR. MISC./7133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for quashing the order cancelling his anticipatory bail. The court held that the inability to pay the agreed monthly maintenance to the wife due to COVID-19 hardships does not justify abandoning the undertaking, constituting an abuse of process. The petitioner was directed to raise the maintenance issue in appropriate family court proceed

What did the court decide?

The quashing petition was dismissed; the petitioner is left to raise the issue of non-payment in family court proceedings.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7133 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2020 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

SANJAY KUMAR SON OF BIRENDRA PRASAD @ BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ BIRENDRA YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGEJANAKPUR, P.S.- GAURICHAK, DISTRICT- PATNA

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

SANGITA DEVI WIFE OF SANJAY KUMAR DAUGHTER OF DINANATH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JANAKPUR, P.S.GAURICHAK, DISTRICT- PATNA. AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHANAUT, P.S.- RUPASPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 21-07-2022

¶13

This is an application for quashing the order dated 01.11.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Patna City in Cr. Misc. (B.C.) Case No. 101 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the learned court below cancel the Anticipatory Bail of the petitioner, which was granted on 18.03.2021 in A.B.P. No.7513 of 2021 in Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 378 of 2020.

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶15

It appears from, submission of learned counsel for the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7133 of 2022(4) dt.21-07-2022 2/2

¶17

petitioner that the petitioner is not in position to pay Rs. 6,000/per month to the O.P. No.2, namely, Sangita Devi, due to circumstantial hardship developed due to COVID-19, pandemic.

¶18

Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submitted that anticipatory bail was obtained from court below on the sole ground of monthly payment of Rs. 6,000/- to O.P. No.2, as per own undertaking of petitioner and, as such, present quashing petition is nothing but abuse of process of law, amounting a permission to make a “u-turn” from own undertaking to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to his wife and children, which is otherwise to save them from destitution, in difficult time of pandemic.

¶19

Considering the submissions as made above, the present quashing petition stands dismissed.

¶20

However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise this issue in maintenance proceeding, if any, pending between the parties before learned Family Court.

¶21

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶22

S.Katyayan/-

¶23

U T

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Ashok Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Kamlesh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Chhote Lal Patel Vs The State of Bihar

Indrajeet Kumar Rai @ Indrajeet Rai Vs the State of Bihar