Patna High Court
Sneha KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court declined to interfere with the anticipatory bail order, directing that cancellation, if warranted, lies with the trial court under the existing condition.
Summary
Sneha Kumari, the wife of Anand Kumar Poddar, filed an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to her husband on 23 July 2020. The bail order was conditioned on the husband depositing a maintenance amount of Rs.15,000 per month, with a provision that failure to pay for two consecutive months would permit cancellation of the bail bond. The husband has paid only 27 out of the required 60 months, prompting the petitioner's grievance. The High Court observed that the condition for cancellation already exists and that the trial court has the authority to act on it, and therefore declined to interfere with the bail order. Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail was disposed of, leaving the matter to be addressed by the lower court within the stipulated period.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for cancelling anticipatory bail when the bail condition of maintenance payment is breached?
- Whether the High Court can set aside the anticipatory bail order despite the presence of a specific cancellation condition.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- maintenance
- bail cancellation
- conditional bail
- family law
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63988 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-724 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - JHANJHARPUR
District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sneha Kumari D/o Late Dev Narayan Prasad and W/o Anand Kumar Poddar
@ Anand Poddar Resident of village- Atari, PO- Laukahi, PS- Laukahi,
District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anand Kumar Poddar @ Anand Poddar S/o Jagarnath Poddar R/o Sutapatti,
Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Town, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, at present
Residing at 15 GH, Aam Gola, Kalyani, Naka no. 3, Pankha Toli, Musahri,
P.S.- Muzaffarpur Town, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application for cancellation of bail has
been filed against the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court whereby and whereunder the
anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party no.2 in view of
the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner
(present opposite party no.2) that the petitioner (opposite party
no.2) was ready to give maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per
month and certain conditions had also been laid down in the said
order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
opposite party no.2, despite his undertaking has not been making
payment to the petitioner (wife) regularly and he has stated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63988 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/2
paragraph-12 of this petition that up till now payment of 27
months out of 60 months have only been received up-to July,
2025.
4. It is apparent from the order dated 23.07.2020 that
there is already a condition bearing condition no.(iii) wherein it
has been enumerated that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the
maintenance amount for two consecutive months, the Court below
would be at liberty to cancel the bail bond; It is clear from leveling
of such condition that the Court, granting the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2, had granted liberty to
the Court concerned where matter is pending to cancel the bail
bond in case of failure of deposit amount for two consecutive
months. In such view of the matter, this Court does not feel
inclined to interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail as the
said liberty has already been granted to the concerned Court and in
case the petitioner approaches the Court concerned for redressal of
her grievance, the same may be taken into consideration by the
Court concerned in accordance with law, preferably within three
months of filing of such application.
5. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the
present application is disposed of.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…