Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 642 (JHR)

Shankar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-06-16

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1 of 2013, whereby the conditional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners have been cancelled. 3. The petitioners are husband and in-laws of the informant and there is allegation against them to have subjected the informant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners filed their application for anticipatory bail and the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, where the matter was compromised between the parties. On the basis of the compromise, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners with the condition that if the informant was again tortured and cruelty was inflicted upon her in future, then the informant would be at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail. It appears that the informant was again subjected to torture and cruelty and she was driven out of her matrimonial home and she filed the application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners, upon which the impugned order was passed cancelling the anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the Court below in the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners, wherein, it is stated that the husband had undertaken to keep his wife with proper care and dignity. Learned counsel has also pointed out from the application filed by the informant in the Court below that there is allegation against the husband to have again subjected the informant to cruelty and torture. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order, so far as it cancels the bail of the other in-laws, at least cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 6. The application filed by the informant for cancellation of anticipatory bail has also been brought on record. There is allegation against all the accused-petitioners in the said application, stating that when the informant was brought back to her matrimonial home, after a fortnight, all the accused petitioners again started torturing the informant demanding money and there is specific allegation against the husband of the informant of assaulting her. There is allegation against all the accused-petitioners in the said application, stating that when the informant was brought back to her matrimonial home, after a fortnight, all the accused petitioners again started torturing the informant demanding money and there is specific allegation against the husband of the informant of assaulting her. In this view of the matter, there is allegation against the petitioners also to have subjected the informant to cruelty and torture. I am of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the Court below by canceling the conditional anticipatory bail of the petitioners, which was granted on the condition that the informant shall not be subjected to cruelty and torture in future. 7. In the facts of this, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below. There is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. 8. The petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to file fresh application for anticipatory bail, which shall be considered and disposed of by the Court below in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by this order.