Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

Corporate Governance in India : Legal Framework and Challenges

Indian corporate governance is based on a relatively elaborate statutory-regulatory framework established on the basis of the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Listing...
HomeSupreme Court of IndiaAjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026


Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

     ITEM NO.11                              COURT NO.1                       SECTION II-A

                                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

          Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                      No(s).   1173/2026

     [Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 30-06-2025 in ABA
     No. 7457/2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi]

     AJAY KUMAR                                                                Petitioner(s)

                                                        VERSUS

     THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.                                             Respondent(s)

     (IA No. 10087/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.
     10083/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and
     IA No. 10085/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

     Date : 19-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

     For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mithilesh Jha, AOR

     For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
                         Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Utkarsh Anand, Adv.

                                        Mr. Santosh Kumar Sethi, Adv.
                                        Mrs. Alka Sinha, Adv.
                                        Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR

                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                                                  O R D E R

1. The petitioner-husband has been denied anticipatory bail vide

the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the High Court of

Jharkhand, in connection with FIR No. 52/2024 dated 22.06.2024

lodged at Police Station Bokaro Thermal under Sections 498-A, 448,

504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2026.02.24

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

17:31:19 IST
Reason:

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.06.2023.

1
After residing together for hardly a year, the complainant-wife is

said to have been forcefully ousted from the matrimonial home in

March, 2024. This led to registration of the subject FIR as well as

the initiation of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C.

3. It seems that before the High Court, the petitioner-husband

pleaded that a settlement had been arrived at between the parties

in terms whereof he was obligated to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the wife.

However, the High Court denied the prayer for anticipatory bail

owing to the nature of the allegations levelled against the

petitioner-husband.

4. Pursuant to this Court’s interim directions dated 15.01.2026,

the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh (in two

installments of Rs.50,000/- each), whereupon his arrest was stayed.

5. Respondent No.2-wife has also entered appearance. Her counsel

specifically denies any settlement and submits that the plea taken

by the petitioner in this regard is false. He also submits that no

maintenance has been paid for the past two years.

6. We have considered the rival submissions. The investigation

in the matter is complete, and the chargesheet has been filed.

That being so, we see no reason why the petitioner should be

subjected to any custodial interrogation. Besides this, respondent

No.2-wife deserves to be provided with some relief for sustenance.

We clarify that in the absence of any agreement between the

parties, the plea taken by the petitioner-husband that the issues

between them have been settled cannot be accepted. However,

regardless thereof, the Registry is directed to release the amount

2
of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the petitioner in favour of respondent

No.2-wife forthwith, along with the interest accrued thereupon. The

said amount shall be adjusted by the wife against the arrears of

maintenance. She shall be at liberty to approach the Family Court

for recovery of the balance arrears, for which the Family Court is

directed to take suitable action in accordance with law.

7. However, before doing so, the Family Court shall refer the

parties for mediation with an endeavour to explore the possibility

of a fresh amicable settlement. The petitioner’s arrest during the

pendency of the trial proceedings shall remain stayed, subject to

such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of, in the above

terms.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(NITIN TALREJA)                                 (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                 3



Source link