Patna High Court
KUMAR SAURABH @ SOMUversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONSIGNED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the maintenance condition no longer survives and, as the anticipatory bail order has attained finality, it cannot be modified; the modification application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumar Saurabh, was granted anticipatory bail on 09.05.2022 with a condition to deposit Rs 5,000 monthly as maintenance in the informant's bank account. The informant failed to provide her account details, making compliance impossible. Subsequent proceedings revealed that the informant had remarried and the petitioner obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13‑B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court held that the maintenance condition no longer survived and, because the bail order had attained finality, it could not be modified under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. (or Section 403 of the BNSS). Consequently, the application for modification was dismissed and consigned to the record.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail order can be modified to remove the maintenance condition in view of the changed marital status of the informant and the divorce decree obtained by the petitioner.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to alter an anticipatory bail order that has attained finality under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the petition for modification is maintainable in law.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 403
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161, 164, 362
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13-B
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- modification of bail
- maintenance condition
- Hindu Marriage Act
- divorce decree
- finality of order
- Section 362 CrPC
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50852 of 2022
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32178 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2020 Thana- PATRAKARNAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
KUMAR SAURABH @ SOMU Son of Mahanand Singh Resident of Village
- Khopira, P.S.- Pawana, District - Bhojpur, Bihar, At present resident of at
P.I.T. Colony, L2/57, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Town and District -
Patna 800020
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rubi Kumari, D/o Ram Dinesh Pandy, R/v, Manipur, P.S. Nokha, District,
Rohtas, at present resident of Ganga Bihar Colony, P.S. Beur Town, Distinct,
Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate
Mr.Kundan Rathore@ Kundan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
for the informant : Mrs. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate
Ms. Sunidhi Vimal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 14-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
modification of the order dated 09.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.32178 of 2021, whereby the petitioner was allowed
anticipatory bail. One of the conditions therein was that the
petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- in first week of every month
commencing from May as maintenance in the account furnished
by the informant and bail bond of the petitioner would be
accepted by the learned District Court on showing receipt of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50852 of 2022(4) dt.14-05-2026
2/5
deposit of Rs.5,000/- (for the month of May) by the petitioner in
the account of the informant.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that in terms of the order dated 09.05.2022, the
informant/O.P. No. 2 was required to furnish her bank account
details to the petitioner for the purpose of compliance with the
conditions stipulated therein. However, despite the said
direction, neither the informant nor her learned counsel
furnished the requisite bank account details to the petitioner and,
consequently, for reasons beyond the petitioner’s control, the
order dated 09.05.2022 could not be complied with.
4. Vide order dated 27.04.2026, the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Patna was directed to verify as to whether O.P. No. 2 was
residing at the present address mentioned in the bail application. In
compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been submitted by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna stating therein that upon
verification of the address furnished in the bail application, no
definite information could be gathered regarding the present
whereabouts of O.P. No. 2. Thereafter, further steps were taken by
seeking verification through the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas
with regard to the whereabouts and status of O.P. No. 2.
5. Learned counsel at this stage submitted that
petitioner had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13-B of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50852 of 2022(4) dt.14-05-2026
3/5
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the informant being
Matrimonial Case No.1451 of 2019 in which ex-parte decree of
divorce has been passed vide judgment dated 03.01.2026, by the
learned Family Court, Patna, copy of which has been brought on
record as Annexure P/9 to the supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner. In the said judgment, it has been
recorded that statement of the informant was recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 of CrPc, wherein she has admitted that she
has already married with another person, namely, Aniket Raj.
6. In view of the specific information brought on
record, particularly the findings and observations contained in
the judgment dated 03.01.2026, this Court is of the considered
view that no purpose would be served in keeping the present
issue alive. It transpires from the statement of O.P. No. 2
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she has unequivocally
stated her intention to lead her matrimonial life with another
person, namely, Aniket Raj, with whom she has already
solemnized marriage. It further appears that the present
petitioner has already obtained a decree of divorce under
Section 13(1-B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
7. I find that the petitioner had earlier been granted the
privilege of pre-arrest bail vide order dated 09.05.2022 passed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50852 of 2022(4) dt.14-05-2026
4/5
Cr. Misc. No. 32178 of 2021. In the aforesaid backdrop, this
Court finds that the undertaking allegedly given on behalf of the
petitioner for payment of Rs.5,000/- per month towards
maintenance to O.P. No. 2 no longer survives for consideration
in view of the subsequent developments noticed hereinabove.
Consequently, this Court does not find any necessity for
modification of the order dated 09.05.2022.
8. Since this Court has already taken into consideration
the subsequent developments in the matter, particularly the fact
that O.P. No. 2 has already solemnized marriage with another
person and the petitioner has also obtained a decree of divorce
as recently as on 03.01.2026, this Court is of the view that no
further orders are required in the matter. Apart from the
aforesaid subsequent developments, this Court further finds that
the prayer for modification of the order dated 09.05.2022 is
otherwise not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the said order
has already attained finality and, in view of the bar contained
under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 403
of the BNSS, this Court has no jurisdiction to alter or review the
same except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.
9. The present modification application is consigned to
record.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50852 of 2022(4) dt.14-05-2026
5/5
10. This Court appreciates the manner in which Mr.
Kamla Kant Tiwary, learned counsel, has assisted this Court,
placing the relevant facts in their proper perspective.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.