Arnesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar .

Factual and Procedural Background

The order arises out of a special leave petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India. During the hearing, the petitioner sought permission to add his wife as Respondent 2. The Court allowed the impleadment and fixed a returnable date of 25-11-2013 for further proceedings. It also directed both the petitioner and his wife to be personally present on that date, required the petitioner to deposit ₹25,000 toward her travel expenses, and granted him provisional bail if he either surrendered or was arrested within four weeks, subject to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner requested that his wife be impleaded as Respondent 2 in the special leave petition.
• Through senior counsel, he represented to the Court that he is prepared to keep his wife “with dignity.”

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated the matter as procedural in nature and provided interim relief and directions without engaging in detailed legal analysis. Its key steps were:

• Allowed the impleadment of the petitioner’s wife as Respondent 2 and directed filing of an amended cause-title within one week.
• Issued notice to all respondents, returnable on 25-11-2013, and mandated personal appearance of both the petitioner and Respondent 2 on that date.
• Ordered the petitioner to deposit ₹25,000 in the Court Registry to cover Respondent 2’s expenses for appearing before the Court.
• Granted the petitioner provisional bail, effective if he surrenders or is arrested within four weeks, on terms consistent with Section 438(2) CrPC, leaving the precise conditions to the satisfaction of the arresting authority or the court seized of the case.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM ORDER ISSUED

Immediate Consequences: The wife is now a formal respondent; the petitioner enjoys provisional bail subject to compliance; and funds must be deposited for Respondent 2’s travel. The matter is set for further hearing on 25-11-2013.

Broader Implications: The order is purely interlocutory and sets no new precedent; its effects are confined to the parties pending final adjudication.