Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42837/2017disposed

Raju Ram v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-01-24Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42837 of 2017 ====================================================== Raju Ram Son of Ram Avtar Ram Resident of Village - Chudhiya Mai Asthan, P.S. - Bettiah Muffasil, District - West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sona Devi Daughter of Mangal Ram Resident of Village - Pioni Bag, Baswariya, Ward No. 32, P.S. - Bettiah Nagar, District - West Champaran, Bettiah.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP. For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-01-2018 Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has filed the counter affidavit. Let it be taken on record. The petitioner has sought modification of the order dated 27.08.2014 passed by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 44643 of 2013 whereby the provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner was confirmed but with the caveat that he shall continuously pay Rs.

2000/- per month to the complainant/opposite party no. 2. The aforesaid order was never obeyed by the petitioner because of the financial constraints of the petitioner being unemployed and no money was paid to the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner was thereafter, for disobedience as well as non-compliance of the directions given by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42837 of 2017 (4) dt.24-01-2018 the order dated 27.08.2014, was taken into custody on 13.09.2017. The petitioner thereafter was released on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah vide order dated 20.09.2017. The petitioner is out of jail not by virtue of the order which is sought to be modified. The order dated 27.08.2014 would have been operative till the petitioner paid Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party no. 2. Be it noted that the aforesaid order was of confirmation of the provisional anticipatory bail which was granted to the petitioner. After the petitioner was taken into custody for non-compliance of the directions in the order, the present order has lost its force and cannot be acted upon now. In that case, there would be no need of modification of the present order.

However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that if the opposite party no. 2, if so advised, may file necessary application before the family court for seeking maintenance from the petitioner. As and when such a petition would be filed, the family court shall look into the matter and would pass necessary/appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) KKSINHA/- U T