Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 151 (JHR)

Mehrun Nisha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-23

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
ORDER By the Court.- The petitioner who happens to be the wife of opposite party No. 2, has filed the petition with a prayer that opposite party No. 2 has obtained bail from this Court on 10.6.2013 on misleading submissions vide BA No. 4359 of 2013. In para 7 of the bail application, opposite party No. 2 has contended that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife/informant with full dignity and care. During hearing of the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner was present and it was submitted that the informant wife/ petitioner is also ready to join her matrimonial home subject to assurance that she shall not be subjected to torture for want of dowry. 2. Now by filing the present petition, it is submitted that only to get bail, opposite party No. 2 has made this Court under impression that he is ready to keep his wife with full dignity and care, but in fact, he was not intending so, which is apparent from the fact that after his release from custody, he never fulfilled his assurance which he had given before this Court. The petitioner is still ready to join her matrimonial home to look after her children. It is further submitted that the elder son is in the custody of opposite party No. 2, whereas the younger son is with the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that opposite party No. 2 had gone to the house of the petitioner to bring her back, but, in turn, he was assaulted by his parents in law and that information was immediately given to the trial Court. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner had obtained order of bail by misleading this Court. Once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled only on the ground that the accused has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between him and the other side. The liberty of the accused who has been granted bail shall not be curtailed at the mercy of the informant or other party to the compromise. The liberty of the accused who has been granted bail shall not be curtailed at the mercy of the informant or other party to the compromise. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee, AIR 2004 SC 1699 and in the case of Janeshwar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (2) JLJR 34; Cr. M.P. No. 1115 of 2009. 4. Heard the parties and I have gone through the case record of BA No. 4359 of 2013 and the order dated 10.6.2013 by which opposite party No. 2 has been granted bail. It is evident from perusal of para 7 of the bail application that opposite party No. 2 voluntarily expressed his willingness to keep his wife/informant with full dignity and care and the contention made in para 7 was corroborated by the learned counsel during his submissions. Considering pious intention of the accused opposite party No. 2, he was granted bail and this Court also intended that the spouses should continue their future conjugal life in a peaceful manner and for that, direction was given to the trial Court to watch the conduct of the parties and the opposite party No. 2 was also directed to remain present with his wife/informant on the date fixed, but he did not appear and on one ground or the other, again, litigation between the spouses continue and they have started raising allegation against each other. 5. It would not be out of place to mention here that in course of hearing of this petition for cancellation of bail, again, I have taken pain and invited the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 and tried my level best to make them convinced to sort out their differences and live together peacefully, but the contention of the opposite party No. 2 is that he would not keep his wife with him, though the wife was willing to live with him on any conditions as per choice of opposite party No. 2. The rigid attitude of the opposite party No. 2 was apparent in course of conciliation proceedings. 6. The rigid attitude of the opposite party No. 2 was apparent in course of conciliation proceedings. 6. I have gone through the judgments cited above and it is apparent that in both the cases, parties have entered into a settlement and compromise between them was arrived at and therefore, it was held that only if any of the parties failed to fulfil the obligations, bail should not be cancelled. 'That fact is not available in the case at hand and I think that those judgments are of no help to the opposite party No. 2. 7. In course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had assured that if there will be no amicable settlement and relation between the spouses is not restored, the informant shall appear with all her witnesses within a short span of time, so that final decision in the matter may be taken. It is also informed that the next date fixed in the trial Court is 10.2.2014, the trial is in progress and the case is pending for evidence. 8. Considering all these aspects of the matter, opposite party No. 2 is directed to surrender before the trial Court on 10.2.2014 and on his such surrender, he shall be taken into custody and the petitioner shall produce all her witnesses within a month and the trial Court shall proceed to record evidence on day to day basis. Further more, the trial Court shall also try to secure presence of the Investigating Officer at the earliest possible and shall try to conclude the trial, preferably by the end of March, 2014. It is made clear that if the trial is not concluded within the said period, opposite party No. 2 shall be at liberty to make prayer before this Court for grant of bail. With the above observation and direction, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the bail granted to, opposite party No. 2 by order dated 10.6.2013 passed in B.A. No. 4359 of 2013 stands cancelled. Petition allowed.