Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28235 of 2023 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44003 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-834 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/O Prayag Yadav R/O Village- Hanuman Nagar Bhour, P.S- Pandaul, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mala Devi W/O Santosh Kumar Yadav R/O Village- Hanuman Nagar Bhour, P.S- Pandaul, District- Madhubani, at present Daughter of Shambhu Yadav, resident of village- Mangarpatti, P.S- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Devi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 12.12.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.44003 of 2022 Whereby the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on the ground that he will be paying an amount of Rs.6,000/- by way of maintenance to the opposite party and the child.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inadvertently when the anticipatory bail was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28235 of 2023(2) dt.10-05-2023 2/2 taken up, a submission was made that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 also have a child, but the fact is otherwise, the couple are childless. It is next submitted that opposite party no.2 is working as an Aanganbari Sewika and the maintenance was fixed keeping the child in view.

On query of the Court whether the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court is paying maintenance amount to the opposite party no.2 or not, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amount is not being paid and the present modification application has been filed, the Court is not inclined to entertain the modification application.

Accordingly, the modification application is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T