Patna High Court
Usha KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The application to modify the bail order was dismissed as the petitioner had given an undertaking to pay the loan and now refuses to do so, providing no ground for modification.
Summary
The petitioner, Usha Kumari, was granted bail on the condition that she would pay a bank loan of Rs. 3,17,000 and produce a no‑objection certificate from the bank. She later claimed she could not pay the amount because her husband is in judicial custody and filed an application to modify the bail order. The State pointed out that the petitioner had expressly undertaken before the court that she was ready to pay the loan, and that she has now refused to do so. The court held that the petitioner’s refusal to honor her undertaking does not constitute a ground for modifying the bail order. Consequently, the application for modification was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis, if any, for modifying a bail order on the ground of inability to fulfil a financial condition imposed by the court?
- Does a petitioner’s failure to honour an undertaking to pay a loan amount justify alteration or revocation of bail?
Subjects
- bail
- modification of bail order
- undertaking
- loan repayment condition
- High Court
- criminal miscellaneous
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68310 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29243 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Usha Kumari wife of Saroj Kumar Jha Vill-Kalyanpur, Ward no. 11, P.S-
Kalyanpur, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajeev Kumar Choudhary Son of Uday chandra Choudhary, Assistant
General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Darbhanga, P.S.- Town,
Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 Heard Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for
the State.
2. The present application has been filed for
modifying the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
29243 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been granted bail with the condition that the
petitioner is ready to pay the loan amount to the Bank to the
tune of Rs. 3,17,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventeen
Thousand) and the petitioner at the time of furnishing bail bond
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68310 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
shall produce a no objection certificate from the Bank which
suggest that the petitioner has paid the loan amount to the Bank.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is not in a position to pay the loan amount due to the
reason that her husband Saroj Kumar Jha is languishing in
judicial custody.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that it
appears from paragraph-8 of the order dated 05.08.2025 which
is quoted hereinbelow:
“8. Learned counsel for the petitioner on
instructions fairly submits that the petitioner
is ready to pay the loan amount to the Bank
and as per FIR loan amount has come in tune
of Rs. 3,17,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh
Seventeen Thousand) on the date of filing of
the FIR.”
6. It appears from the aforesaid that learned counsel
for the petitioner on instruction had given an undertaking before
this Court that the petitioner is ready to pay the loan amount to
the Bank but after granting bail, the petitioner has refused to pay
the same.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner had given an
undertaking before this Court and now she has refused to pay
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68310 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
the loan amount to the Bank and hence no case is made out for
modifying the order dated 05.08.2025. It is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…