Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 326 (JHR)

Rupa Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-17

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2020
ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 03.04.2018 in A.B.A. No. 6759 of 2017. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 has solemnized a second marriage with another lady during the subsistence of his marriage with the petitioner and the anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party no. 2 upon his stating that he will keep the petitioner as his wife with full dignity and the opposite party no. 2 is not appearing in the maintenance case which has been filed by the petitioner against him. Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 - who is the petitioner of the anticipatory bail application, in terms of the order dated 03.04.2018 in anticipatory bail application, be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for cancellation of bail and drawing attention of this Court to page no. 11 (Annexure-1) of the brief submits that the opposite party no. 2 herein who was the petitioner of the anticipatory bail application never stated before this Court at the time of granting bail by the said order dated 03.04.2018 that he will keep his wife with dignity and the only condition imposed was to deposit Rs. 6,000/- for the month of March, 2018 and April, 2018 i.e. in total Rs. 12,000/- before 02.05.2018 and it is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has deposited the said amount on 27.04.2018 in the trial court through his Advocate. It is next submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has not solemnized any second marriage with any other lady and the opposite party no. 2 undertakes that he will not solemnize second marriage with any other lady during the subsistence of his marriage with the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this petition being without any merit be dismissed. 4. It is a settled principle of law that 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. 4. It is a settled principle of law that 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 the 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, as has been held by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 . 5. After going through the record and submission made at the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that none of the reasons for which the bail once granted can be cancelled could be made out by the petitioner and perusal of the page no. 11 (Annexure-1) reveals that keeping the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honour was not a condition of bail and in the absence of any misconduct, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 is justified to be cancelled. Accordingly, this petition being without any merit is dismissed.