The High Court rejected the petitioner's application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party. The court held that the petitioner's willingness to resume conjugal life was noted during the bail grant, and the cited circumstances do not warrant cancellation.
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. 223 of 2021
Renu Devi ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arjun Rana ... … Opposite Parties --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ---------
05/03.12.2021 So far as the defect no. 9(v) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same within two weeks. As regards the rest defects are concerned, the same are ignored.
Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
This application has been preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 on 27.05.2020 in A.B.A. No. 7828 of 2019.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 had never taken pains to resume his conjugal life with the petitioner though the petitioner had expressed her willingness consistently to stay with the opposite party no. 2. It has, therefore, been stated that since one of the primary ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no. 2 has been flouted by him, the anticipatory bail granted to him should be cancelled.
The opposite party no. 2 was granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 7828 of 2019 primarily on the ground of willingness of the petitioner to reside with the opposite party no. 2 and resume her conjugal life apart from allegations levelled against the opposite party no. 2 being general and omnibus in nature. In fact, a perusal of the order dated 27.05.2020 does indicate that even in her solemn affirmation, the petitioner had expressed her willingness to stay with the opposite party no. 2 which fact was reiterated by her counsel when the matter was heard on that particular date. Apart from the willingness of the petitioner, the nature of allegations against the opposite party no. 2 was also taken into consideration. Therefore, the circumstances narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not implore this
-2-
Court to cancell the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party
no. 2 passed in A.B.A. No. 7828 of 2019.
Such being the situation, this application stands rejected.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party should be cancelled due to the petitioner's willingness to resume conjugal life being flouted.
Whether the petitioner's failure to resume conjugal life with the opposite party warrants cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Whether the circumstances cited by the petitioner's counsel justify cancelling the anticipatory bail granted earlier.
Renu Devi
State of Jharkhand
Arjun Rana
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
