Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 814 (JHR)

X (Victim) v. State of Jharkhand

2025-03-07

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
ORDER : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1.Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the learned trial court in terms of the order dated 16.12.2019 passed in A.B.A. No. 8518 of 2019 on the condition that the petitioner will furnish bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties and will cooperate with the investigation of the case. 3. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after granting of bail, the opposite party no.2 and his family members demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand, assaulted the petitioner, stopped meal and locked her in the room and in this regard, the petitioner has lodged an FIR being Mahila P.S. Case No. 25 of 2022 involving the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is no allegation of the opposite party no.2, either not cooperating with the investigation of the case or tampering with evidence or indulging in any other act so that fair trial cannot take place and admittedly, for the commission of the subsequent offence a separate FIR has been lodged; therefore there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the bail granted to the opposite party no.2. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others. vide order dated 01.04.2022 in Cr.M.P. No. 2499 of 2021 enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses. vide order dated 01.04.2022 in Cr.M.P. No. 2499 of 2021 enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses. (iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation against the opposite party no.2 is that subsequent to grant of bail to the opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 has committed a separate offence of treating the informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry for which separate FIR has been registered. There is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of having committed any act deed or thing which could be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to an accused person in a case as enumerated by this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others. (supra) as already indicated above. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that the bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled unless he violates or does any act, deed or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2. 10. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.