Back
(2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 196
(BEFORE B.P. SINGH AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.)
MAHESH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2006,
Decided on May 1, 2006
Anticipatory Bail - Maintenance - Court remits matter to High Court for fresh consideration without imposing condition of maintenance
Fact of the Case:
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the jeth and jethani of the victim's daughter-in-law on the condition of paying Rs 2000 per month to the victim. The applicants appealed against this condition.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that it was not within the jurisdiction of the court to decide civil disputes or impose conditions for maintenance while deciding a bail application. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration without imposing the maintenance condition.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court to decide civil disputes and impose conditions for maintenance in a bail application
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that deciding a bail application does not entail deciding civil disputes or imposing maintenance conditions. Such matters should be considered separately.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration without the condition of maintenance.
ORDER
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. Special leave granted.
3. As a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court has recorded the undertaking of the petitioners to pay to the victim daughter - in - law a sum of Rs 2000 per month and failure to do so would result in vacation of the order granting bail. We notice that the applicants before the High Court were the jeth and jethani of the victim. We fail to understand how they can be made liable to deposit Rs 2000 per month for the maintenance of the victim. Moreover, while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the court to decide civil disputes as between the parties. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to consider the bail application afresh on merit and to pass an appropriate order without imposing any condition of the nature imposed by the impugned order.
4. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. Till the matter is decided by the High Court, the petitioners shall continue on provisional bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
