IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48172 of 2025 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64851 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-697 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Gupta S/O Dinesh Sah Village - Kasbe Aahar, P.S.- Tajpur Dist.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Bihar 2. Sindhu Kumari W/o Suraj Kumar Gupta, D/o Suresh Sah Permanent R/o Village- Kasbe Aahar Tajpur Hospital Chowk, National Gogle Jeam, P.S.- Jajpur, District- Samastipur, At present R/o Village- Chandauli, P.S.- Wanni, District- Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 08-08-2025 The present application is filed for modification of order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64851 of 2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the matter was being heard in Cr. Misc. No. 64851 of 2024 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that he was ready to make payment of Rs. 6000/- per month to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 towards expenses of opposite party no. 2 and one child till disposal of the case before the learned trial court. 3. Having regard to the other factors and also the undertaking of the petitioner before this Court, this Court allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner subject Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48172 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025 2/2 to certain conditions. 4. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the situation has changed and the petitioner is not able to make payment of Rs. 6000/- per month to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 towards expenses of opposite party no. 2 and one child till disposal of the case before the learned trial court. 5. I think it is an absurd submission. The Court did not ask or direct the petitioner to offer any amount for meeting the expenses of the wife/complainant/opposite party no. 2 and child. 6. When a voluntary undertaking has been made before this Court, the same has now become the part of the order and one of the considerations for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and for this reason, I am not inclined to revisit the order dated 18.12.2024 and therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous petition filed for modification of the order dated 18.12.2024 is dismissed. Anuradha/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T