1 2026:JHHC:365 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3568 of 2025 ---- Bharat Kumar Gupta, age about 51 years son of late Bisun Sao, resident of Loyabad Quarter No.8, PO Jogra, PS Jogra, District Dhanbad …. Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Resham Sao @ Resam Devi, wife of Bharat Kumar Gupta, D/o Vijay Sao, resident of Saldanga, Naglane College Road, Raniganj, PO and PS Raniganj Dist. Bardwan, West Bengal …. Opp. Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP(Thr.V.C.) ---- 2/07.01.2026 This petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 01.12.2016 passed in ABA No.4572 of 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that anticipatory bail was allowed to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs.4000/- per month on the 15th day of every month of English calendar. He further submits that now the final order has been passed for maintenance and the petitioner is already paying the amount of maintenance and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not required to pay further amount. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent State appearing through Video Conferencing (V.C.) by way of placing the order of which modification is being sought by the petitioner, submits that in further paragraphs, it has been clarified by the coordinate Bench of this Court that ad-interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month will 2 be deposited for two successive months and it was mentioned in further paragraph that, aforesaid ad interim maintenance is subject to result of any maintenance order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and it was further stated that ad-interim maintenance will be paid of Rs.4000/- per month till the disposal of the case. She further submits that order of the Coordinate Bench is clear and this petition is mis-conceived one. 4. In view of above and looking to the paragraph nos.(ix) and (x) of the said order, it transpires that, there is clear cut observation that ad-interim maintenance will be paid till another maintenance order is passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and further Rs.4000/- as ad-interim maintenance will be paid till the dispose of the case. It has been pointed out that maintenance is allowed and in terms of that, the petitioner is already paying the maintenance. 5. In view of the order of the learned Coordinate Bench, this petition is a misconceived one as the order is very clear that ad- interim maintenance is required to be paid until the order of maintenance is allowed by the competent court of jurisdiction and till disposal of the case. 6. In view of above, this petition is disposed of as mis-conceived one. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 07th January,2026 SI/