Jharkhand High Court
Manish Kumar Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:14981]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3132 of 2024
------
Manish Kumar Bhagat, Son of Jagat Narayan Bhagat, aged about-
31 Years, Resident of village- Poraiyahat, Hatiyatola, P.S, & P.O.-
Poraiyahat, District- Godda (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anjali Kumari Singh, D/o- Deepak Kumar Singh, W/o- Manish
Kumar Bhagat, Resident of - Shyamnagar, Pakur, P.S.- Pakur
(Town), P.O. & District- Pakur.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside part of the order dated
03.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in A.B.P. No.196 of 2024
arising out of Pakur Mahila P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 whereby and where under
while allowing the Anticipatory Bail Petition of the petitioner, the learned
Sessions Judge, Pakur has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.8,000/- per
month in favour of informant on each 7th day of every month as per English
Calendar; failing which, the informant was given liberty to take recourse of
law.
[2025:JHHC:14981]
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was granted the privileges
of anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.196 of 2024
in aforesaid terms.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Talat Sanvi vs. State of
Jharkhand & Another passed in (2023) 14 SCC 114, para-11 and 12 of which
read as under:-
"11. The Court opined that the objective is clear that in cases of
offences against body, compensation to the victim should be
methodology for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary
harassment, compensation has been provided where meaningless
criminal proceedings had been started. Such a compensation can
hardly be determined at the stage of grant of bail.
12. Not being appreciative of such judicial misadventure, we have
no hesitation in quashing the condition imposed in the impugned
order in this behalf while maintaining the other aspects of the grant
of anticipatory bail."
and submits that it is a settled principle of law that the condition of
paying Rs.8,000/- per month cannot be imposed upon an accused seeking
anticipatory bail, as such a condition is without jurisdiction and is an erroneous
one. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the
petitioner and submit that keeping in view that the offence involved in this
case is inter alia punishable under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal
Code, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being
without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
[2025:JHHC:14981]
here that by now it is a settled principle of law that regular bail or anticipatory
bail per se cannot be granted to a person with a condition to deposit or pay
money to any private individual including the victim of the offence.
7. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur has committed a grave illegally by imposing
a condition to deposit an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month in the Bank Account
of the informant as a condition precedent for granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the portion of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in A.B.P. No. 196 of 2024 arising out of Pakur
Mahila P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 wherein the said condition of making deposit of
Rs.8,000/- per month in the Bank Account of the informant on 7th day of every
month as per English Calendar is laid down, is quashed and set aside while
maintaining the other aspects of the grant of anticipatory bail.
9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 09th of June, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
