In a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging bail granted to a respondent in a dowry and IPC offence, the bench dismissed the prayer to cancel bail, citing significant delay by the complainant in adducing evidence.
Petition to cancel bail dismissed; direction to complainant to produce witnesses for trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2265 of 2014
Anita Devi …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Diwakar Mahto …… Opposite Parties
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
--------For the Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Pandey, Advocate For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lochan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. Order No.08 Dated : 14th August, 2015 This Cr.M.P. has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to O.P. No.2 vide order dated 02.05.2013 passed in A.B.A. No.949 of 2013.
It is submitted that informant has lodged a case against O.P. No.2 u/s 498-A, 323, 379 & 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In that very case, O.P. No.2 had applied for grant of anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No.949 of 2013 and he was granted bail with certain conditions which are appearing in the order dated 02.05.2013. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, in order to get relief from this Court, had submitted that he would keep his wife with all dignity and care and he shall not commit torture in future but O.P. No.2 has repeated the same incident after getting bail. He has misused the privilege of bail granted to him and therefore, anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.05.2013 passed in A.B.A. No.949 of 2013 may be cancelled.
Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 has opposed the prayer.
It appears from the ordersheet of the trial Court passed in G.R. Case No.577 of 2012, T.R. No.599 of 2014, Madhupur (Karon) P.S. Case No.68 of 2012 that on 20.08.2013 charges have been framed against the accused persons. The petitioner did not appear for adducing evidence for about two years and now she has come up before this Court with a prayer to cancel bail granted to O.P. No.2. I do not feel inclined to consider the prayer. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands dismissed with a direction to the complainant to produce all her witnesses for recording of their evidence before the trial Court so that the trial may proceed further. It is made clear if the the witnesses shall be produced, the Court shall examine them by giving shorter adjournments and conclude the trial at the earliest. O.P. No.2 and other accused shall remain present and shall cooperate with the trial.
(D. N. Upadhyay, J.)
NKC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent should be allowed.
Whether the delay in adducing evidence by the complainant warrants dismissal of the petition to cancel bail.
Anita Devi
Diwakar Mahto
D.N. Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
