Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1857 (JHR)

Neelam Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-03

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2017
ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. PC at the instance of the petitioner with a prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 10.08.2015, passed in A.B.A. No. 1420 of 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have obtained the anticipatory bail in a frivolous manner by misleading that they are ready to keep the petitioner, but as mentioned in the order dated 28.11.2016 in A.B.A. No. 120 of 2016 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in that A.B.A. No. 120 of 2016 the petitioner filed I.A. No. 6876 of 2016 wherein she stated that instead of taking the petitioner, her husband who was the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 120 of 2016, after hatching a deep rooted conspiracy with his father has lodged a false and frivolous case against the petitioner, her father, mother and uncle vide PCR Case No. 862 of 2016, which goes to suggest the ulterior motive of the opposite parties. Hence, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 to 4 be cancelled. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to 4 submits that no condition was imposed upon the opposite parties in the anticipatory bail granted to them. The husband of the petitioner being an adult independent person, the opposite party no. 2 to 4 cannot be held responsible for his action. Moreover lodging a case is not an offence and in the absence of any finding by any Court of law that the case lodged by the husband of the petitioner is false or frivolous no adverse action can be taken against the opposite party no. 2 to 4. 2 to 4 cannot be held responsible for his action. Moreover lodging a case is not an offence and in the absence of any finding by any Court of law that the case lodged by the husband of the petitioner is false or frivolous no adverse action can be taken against the opposite party no. 2 to 4. They also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 has settled the principle of law relating to cancelling bail as under:- "Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts." 5. The learned Additional P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to 4, further submitted that none of the grounds for cancellation of bail has been made out by the petitioner. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail has no merit. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Savitri Agarwal and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2009 (3) East Cr. C 290 (SC) on 10th July, 2009 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1178-1179 of 2009 with Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 5563-5564 of 2008, relating to a case cancellation of anticipatory bail in paragraph 21 has held as under: "21. It also appears to us that the High Court has overlooked the distinction of factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 5563-5564 of 2008, relating to a case cancellation of anticipatory bail in paragraph 21 has held as under: "21. It also appears to us that the High Court has overlooked the distinction of factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. In Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, while dealing with a similar situation where the High Court had cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge in a dowry death case, this Court had observed that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail had to be considered or dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted, which, in our opinion, were missing in the instant case. Nothing was brought to our notice from which it could be inferred that the appellants have not co-operated in the investigations or have, in any manner, abused the concession of bail granted to them. As a (1995) 1 SCC 349 matter of fact, Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel representing the State, stated that after grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants, no investigation in the case has been conducted." 7. Considering the aforesaid submission made by the parties and looking upon to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the in the absence of any condition imposed in the order dated 10.08.2015 in A.B.A. No. 1420 of 2015 upon the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, the mere fact that the husband of the petitioner has hot taken to her to his house or for that matter the husband of the petitioner has lodged a case against the petitioner and his family members which is in the opinion of the petitioner a false and frivolous case is certainly not a valid ground for cancellation of bail. Thus, the petitioner has certainly failed to make out a case for cancellation of bail. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit is dismissed. Petition dismissed.