Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1066 (JHR)

Ambrish Prasad Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-18

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned Principal Session Judge, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners on 07.10.2013 in A.B.P. No. 753 of 2013 has been cancelled. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail on the basis of a compromise which has been arrived at but subsequently on the ground that the terms and conditions of the compromise were not adhered to strictly an application for cancelation of bail was filed before the learned court below and vide order dated 18.09.2014 the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled. It has been submitted that the husband and the opposite party no. 2 are staying together and, therefore, in view of the compromise so arrived at the petitioners be directed to remain on previous bail granted by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2014. It has also been submitted that the petitioners are the parents-in-law as well as the cousin-brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and they reside separate to the husband who is staying with the opposite party no. 2. 4. Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has accepted the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has stated that he does not have any objection if the order by which the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners have been cancelled is set aside as the husband and the opposite party no. 2 are admittedly staying together and have ironed out all their differences. 5. It appears that earlier on the basis of a compromise arrived at in which a joint compromise petition was also filed the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 753 of 2013 on 07.10.2013. Subsequently, however, on the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 for cancellation of bail as the terms and conditions agreed upon were not followed strictly, the learned Principal Session Judge, Giridih vide order dated 18.09.2014 in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2014 had cancelled the anticipatory bail so granted. Subsequently, however, on the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 for cancellation of bail as the terms and conditions agreed upon were not followed strictly, the learned Principal Session Judge, Giridih vide order dated 18.09.2014 in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2014 had cancelled the anticipatory bail so granted. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that good relationship has been restored between the husband and opposite party no 2,the petitioners who reside separately deserves to remain on bail which was earlier granted. 6. Therefore, in view of the fact that the matter has been compromised and the husband and the opposite party no. 2 are staying together in terms of the compromise, the impugned order dated 18.09.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2014 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. This application is allowed.