Nitu Kumari, aged about 29 years, wife of Dhanjee Kumar, Resident of Village-Murli Nagar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dhanjee Kumar, son of Vijay Kishore Singh, resident
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1836 of 2022 Nitu Kumari, aged about 29 years, wife of Dhanjee Kumar, Resident of Village-Murli Nagar Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S.-Saraidhela, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dhanjee Kumar, son of Vijay Kishore Singh, resident of Sector- 12, D Quarter No.2137, Near R.B. S. College, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Sector-12, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand, presently residing/posted at Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Nawanagar, Village-Belaon, P.O.- Belaon, P.S.-Nawanagar, Dist.-Buxar, Bihar-802129 …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
So far as the condition of bail is concerned, it is prima facie evident that because of non-cooperation of the petitioner to resume conjugal life, the same cannot be fulfilled. 10. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in Criminal Miscellaneous No.107 of 2021 dated 23.03.2022 nor there is any justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th July, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Cr.M.P. No.1836 of 2022 5
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.107of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail which was granted to the Cr.M.P. No.1836 of 2022 1 opposite party no.2 in A.B.P. No. 834 of 2021 vide order dated 16.04.2021 and a second prayer has been made for cancellation of bail of opposite party no.2 which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No. 834 of 2021 vide order dated 16.04.2021. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 is an accused of Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 lodged by the petitioner involving the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party no.2 filed a petition for anticipatory bail vide A.B.P. No. 834 of 2021 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad considering the materials in the record as well as the compromise arrived at between the parties, wherein it was decided that the opposite party no.2 will keep the petitioner with full dignity, with undertaking that he will never torture his wife and she will be maintained genuinely by the opposite party no.2 and that the opposite party no.2 shall not maintain any extra marital affair with Lucky Singh or with any other girl. 4. Consequent upon the said order passed in the anticipatory bail application, the petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of bail in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad, the same was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.107 of 2021. It was contended by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad that after the bail was granted to the opposite party no.2 his attitude has been changed and he refuse to live with Cr.M.P. No.1836 of 2022 2 the petitioner and went to his place of work at Rohtash. On 05.07.2021, the petitioner with her parents went to Rohtash but the house of the opposite party no.2 was locked and the opposite party no.2 was found to be living with Lucky Singh in her house. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad the opposite party no.2 denied the allegations made against him by the petitioner and submitted that no violation of any condition of the bail has been made by him. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 were directed to remain physically present. The petitioner refused to live with the opposite party no.2-husband on the ground of cruelty and extra marital affair whereas the opposite party no.2 was ready and willing to resume conjugal life with the petitioner and as it appeared to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad that there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of tampering with evidence or violating the terms and condition of bail and because the petitioner herself does not want to remain with the opposite party no.2 hence, it rejected the prayer for cancellation of bail. 5. Before this Court also both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 was directed to remain physically present. In this Court today the petitioner refused to resume conjugal life with the opposite party no.2 and also refuse to go to Buxar where the opposite party no.2 is posted in Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank but the opposite party no.2 is still ready and willing to resume conjugal life with the petitioner if she agrees and also ready and willing not to have any connection with any lady other than the petitioner. Cr.M.P. No.1836 of 2022 3 6. It is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to an accused person of a case cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise has not been complied with as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC 123 paragraphs-4 & 5 of which read as under:- “4. The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the tenant from the premises of which the respondent is the owner. Previously, there was a compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise by not vacating the premises in question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail was filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that neither was any averment made in the petition about misuse of liberty granted to the appellant nor was any difficulty alleged to have been faced by the prosecution in the case on the ground of the appellant being at large. 5. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is also a settled principle of law that the ground upon which the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled illustratively though not exhaustively are as under:- (i) (ii) (iii) by indulging in similar criminal activity, interfering with the course of investigation, attempting to tamper with evidence or witnesses, Cr.M.P. No.1836 of 2022 4 (iv) (v) (vi) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. 8. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of committing any misconduct which would make him liable for cancellation of bail.