The Supreme Court has declined to entertain an appeal against the decision of the Patna High Court requiring the appellant to pay maintenance to his wife as a condition for granting anticipatory bail.
A Bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Patna High Court and dismissed the special leave petition filed by the appellant.
The Apex Court recorded in its order,
“having carefully examining the material placed on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
The appellant in this case had approached the HC seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While granting the same, the Patna High Court had levied a condition that he would have to pay a maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month to his wife.
In his special leave petition, the appellant raised numerous questions of law such as whether imposition of such a condition is within the powers and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438.
The petition also stated that, “an order for paying maintenance in a case regarding anticipatory bail is “onerous, unjustified and beyond jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court, however, found no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Patna High Court.