Shambhu Prasad Chaurasiya @ … vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2010

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Cr.Misc. No.11626 of 2010
        SHAMBHU PRASAD CHAURASIYA @ SHAMBHU CHAURASIYA
                                            Versus
                                 THE STATE OF BIHAR
                   For the Petitioner: Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
                   For the State: Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
                   For O.P.No. 2: Mr. Kaushal Kishore,Advocate
                                          -----------

7 11.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the

complainant/informant and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences

punishable under section 498A and 504/34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is

ready to lead a conjugal life with his wife with full dignity and

honour.

However, a counter affidavit has been filed by the

informant stating therein that the petitioner had remarried.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had

remained in custody since 16.11.2009 till his release on

provisional bail as per order of this Court dated 29.04.2010.

Petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that

he is ready to pay Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) per month by way

of maintenance to the informant/complainant. Learned counsel

submits that the petitioner would deposit the aforesaid amount
2

regularly till any decision in future is taken by any court of

competent jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the informant/complainant raises no

objection to it.

In the above view of the matter, the provisional bail

earlier granted by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2010 is

hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner,

as per his undertaking, pays an amount of Rs. 1000/-(one

thousand) per month 15th day of every month commencing from

September 2010. So far the maintenance for the month of August

2010 is concerned, he shall deposit the same till 31st of August,

2010. The aforesaid sum would be deposited by the petitioner

before the court concerned who is in seisin of the matter. The

informant/complainant would be at liberty to withdraw the said

amount. It is made clear that this order would be subject to any

order, if passed in any proceeding in future brought for the

purpose of maintenance or any order passed in future in this

regard by a court of competent jurisdiction. In case the petitioner

violates the aforesaid conditions the court concerned would be at

liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.

SC                          ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)