Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23305/2013dismissed

Amit Kumar Thakur v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-11-22Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23305 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1457 Year- 2012 Thana -DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Amit Kumar Thakur son of Sri Arun Kumar Thakur Resident Of VillageBharwara, P.S.- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Raj Nandani Thakur wife of Sri Amit Kumar Thakur Resident Of Mohalla- Kadirabad Ward No.-6, P.S.- Lalit Narain Mithila University, District- Darbhanga .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-11-2016 Heard Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel who was assisted by Sri Malay Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order dated 22.3.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in A.B.P. No. 1273 of 2012 . By the said order while extending the privilege of anticipatory bail the learned Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2500/- per month for maintaining opposite party no. 2. On perusal of the order it is evident that on 22.3.2013

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23305 of 2013 (4) dt.22-11-2016 2/2 petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge had offered to pay some maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and in presence of petitioner this order was passed. Meaning thereby that the order was with consent of the petitioner. Moreover, while extending the privilege of anticipatory bail the learned Sessions Judge had said that within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of copy of that order the petitioner was to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender. However, the present petition was filed in the month of June 2013 i.e. much after expiry of the period fixed by the court below.

Keeping in view the fact that it was a consent order certainly petitioner may not be allowed to assail it before this court .

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T