Allowed

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./245/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Court allowed the quashing of an order cancelling the petitioner's bail. The Court held that cancellation was not sustainable as there was no material showing a breach of bail conditions and reliance was placed on a complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling bail is set aside. The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 245 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rita Devi … …. Opp. Parties -----

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

----For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate

¶7

Oral Order

¶8

06 / Dated : 01.11.2023

¶9

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Jamtara P.S. Case No. 165 of 2013 (G.R. No. 481 of 2013) whereby and whereunder, the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled for breach of condition of anticipatory bail application no. 4427 of 2013 wherein condition was imposed that the petitioner will not subject his wife/informant to any cruelty.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was married to the complainant/informant in 2003 and the FIR was lodged on 24.05.2013 after the decree for restitution of conjugal right was passed in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 39 of 2010 on 15.04.2013. Instead of complying with the order passed in the matrimonial suit criminal case has been filed after ten years from the marriage against the Petitioner to wreak vengeance.

¶11

There is no material to show that there has been any breach of the condition of order granting bail. No station diary entry was made and no complaint was made to any authority regarding said breach of condition of bail but merely acting on the complaint of the complainant regarding the said torture, the order of cancellation of bail has been passed.

¶12

It is submitted that against the cancellation order, the petitioner has moved the revisional court which was dismissed against which the instant petition has been filed.

¶13

It is also submitted that grant of bail in a case under Section 498A of IPC is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. {2014(8) SCC 273} and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the

¶15

informant/complainant, have opposed the quashing petition and submitted that the informant has given a categorical statement before the Court below that quite in defiance to the undertaking given to the Court when the informant went to her matrimonial home, she was assaulted, abused and ousted from there.

¶16

Law is settled that there must be cogent, compelling and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. Grounds for cancellation broadly are:

¶17

I. Interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice.

¶18

II. Evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice.

¶19

It has been held in Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee , (2004) 3

¶20

SCC 388

¶21

The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.

¶22

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the reasons discussed above this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is accordingly, set aside.

¶23

This Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed.

¶24

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶25

AKT/Satendra

¶26

Uploaded

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md Salim Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sita Kumari Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Radhika Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Kabadi Shankarasa Clothing Company Represented By Its Gpa Holder R K Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jugeshwar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shraboni Mukherjee Vs State of Jharkhand