Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 267 (JHR)

Subrato Kumar Gope v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-08

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. Petition No.10 of 2014 whereby and where under the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner has been allowed and the bail granted to the petitioner in B.P. No.839 of 2013 was cancelled. 3. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the institution of the case under sections 498A, 406 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner had surrendered on 18.06.2013 before the learned court below. It has also been stated that the petitioner was granted provisional bail on 20.07.2013 which was finally confirmed vide order dated 20.08.2013 in B.P. No.839 of 2013. Learned senior counsel further submits that the order dated 20.08.2013 confirming the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is based not only on the undertaking given by the petitioner but also considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the period of detention undergone by the petitioner. It has thus been submitted that impugned order dated 22.09.2016 has merely concentrated itself on the non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the undertaking given by the petitioner and not on the other issue which was considered by the learned trial court while granting bail to the petitioner. 4. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has supported the impugned order. 5. In view of the fact that repeatedly the petitioner had given an undertaking to take back the opposite party no.2 but he failed to keep the promise, it has been stated that the prayer for cancellation of bail was made before this court, in the present case in which also the petitioner had given an undertaking but subsequently resiled from his commitment. 6. 6. Learned counsel submits that this fact has been brought to the notice of the concerned court as also by filing the petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No.63 of 2015. It has been stated that the primary consideration for grant of bail to the petitioner in B.P. No.839 of 2013 in which an undertaking was given by the petitioner for taking back his wife to Narwapahari and since such undertaking has been repeatedly flouted by the petitioner, his prayer for bail has rightly been cancelled by the learned court below. 7. The main plank of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties seem to be with respect to the fact as to whether the bail was granted merely based on the consideration that the petitioner had given an undertaking to take back the opposite part no.2 and keep the opposite party no.2 with him with full dignity and honour. It appears that after surrendering of the petitioner on 18.06.2013, he was granted provisional bail 20.07.2013 which was subsequently confirmed vide order dated 20.08.2013. 8. In the order dated 20.08.2013, a liberty was given to the opposite party no.2 that if the petitioner starts torturing her, then she may file a necessary application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. In terms of the observation made, an application for cancellation was preferred by the opposite party no.2 in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 10 of 2014 in which vide order 22.09.2016, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had not adhered to his earlier promise and commitment of keeping the opposite party no.2 with him with full dignity and honour. 9. A perusal of the order dated 20.08.2013 passed in B.P. No.839 of 2013 reveals that while confirming the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, the period of detention of the petitioner were also taken into consideration. If thus cannot be concluded that the petitioner was granted bail only on the sole criteria that the dispute had been settled on account of the undertaking given by the petitioner. 10. The facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that the allegation levelled against the petitioner had also been considered by the learned court below while confirming the provisional bail granted to the petitioner. 10. The facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that the allegation levelled against the petitioner had also been considered by the learned court below while confirming the provisional bail granted to the petitioner. The period of detention of the petitioner in custody was also one of the primary consideration for granting bail to the petitioner. Such thread-bare appreciation has not been made by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum while cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 22.09.2016 as it seems that the learned court below was swayed by the fact that the petitioner had allegedly flouted out the undertaking which had been given by him at the time of grant of bail. 11. Such circumstance, therefore, makes the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 unsustainable. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, the impugned order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. Petition No.10 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. This application is allowed.