[2025:JHHC:14981] 1 Cr. M.P. No.3132 of 2024 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 ------ P R E S E N T 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] 2 Cr. M.P. No.3132 of 2024 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] 3 Cr. M.P. No.3132 of 2024 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