SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 424

B.P.SINGH, ALTAMAS KABIR
MAHESH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top