Dismissed¶18

Farzana Parween v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2025Cr.M.P./89/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr.M.P. No.89 of 2024; decided 19-09-2025 by Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; petition under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted on 18.10.2023 in A.B.A. No.6632 of 2023; wife sought cancellation of husband's bail alleging breach of condition to resume conjugal life after surrender on 30.11.2023; no allegation of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation with trial; petitioner unwilling to reside at Telo; husband paying monthly maintenance regularly; bail not cancelled; Cr.M.P. dismissed; matrimonial dispute; bail cancellation refused.

What did the court decide?

None; the Cr.M.P. for cancellation of bail was dismissed as being without any merit. ¶18

Farzana Parween Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Cr.M.P. for cancellation of bail was dismissed as being without any merit.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted to opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 18.10.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.6632 of 2023 should be cancelled under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Since there is no allegation against opposite party no.2 of tampering with evidence or not cooperating with the trial of the case, this is not a fit case for cancellation of the bail granted to him in terms of the order dated 18.10.2023 in A.B.A. No.6632 of 2023.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The absence of any allegation that opposite party no.2 tampered with evidence or failed to cooperate with the trial of the case was a decisive reason for refusing cancellation of his bail.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Court took into account the petitioner's unwillingness and uncooperative attitude towards resumption of conjugal life with her husband in deciding that the bail should not be cancelled.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.M.P. No.89 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.), decided 19-09-2025 — Cancellation of anticipatory bail refused. The petitioner (wife of opposite party no.2) invoked Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2 by order dated 18.10.2023 in A.B.A. No.6632 of 2023, submitting that the bail was conditioned on his maintaining her with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife, surrendering on 30.11.2023 and taking her home to resume conjugal life; that on 30.11.2023 both appeared before the trial Court but, after acceptance of his bail bond, he did not take her to his house. Opposite party no.2, physically present in Court, submitted that the parties have lived separately for seven years, that he pays monthly maintenance regularly, and that he is ready and willing to take her to his house at Telo and to come frequently to Telo from his posting at Galsi, Burdwan (W.B.); the petitioner, joined through video conferencing, was not ready and willing to reside at Telo. Holding that there was no allegation against opposite party no.2 of tampering with evidence or not cooperating with the trial, and keeping in view the petitioner's unwillingness and uncooperative attitude towards resumption of conjugal life, the Court found this not a fit case for cancellation of bail and dismissed the Cr.M.P. as without any merit.

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:29105 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.89 of 2024

¶2

Farjana Parween @ Farzana Perween @ Farazana Perween, aged about 34 years, wife of Anwar Ansari, resident of Shyamaldih Basti, P.O.-Katrasgarh, P.S.-Katras, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Permanent Resident- Rail Colony, Galsi, Qrt. No.22/D, P.O. + P.S.Galsi, Dist.-Burdwan (WB) as well as P.O.-Telo, P.S.-Nawadih, Dist.Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Anwar Ansari, son of Albabu Ansari, resident of No.124, Tola Nurgaria, Village Telo, P.O. and P.S.-Chandrapura, Bokaro, Jharkhand. At present resident of Railway Colony, Galsi, Qtr. No.22/D, P.O. & P.S.-Galsi, District Burdwan, W.B.

¶7

… Opposite Parties ------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Vishal Anand, Advocate ------

¶10

Order No:-11 Dated:-19-09-2025

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 read with 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.6632 of 2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 was given the privilege of anticipatory bail on the condition that he will keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife and will surrender on 30.11.2023 and if the petitioner also appears on that date, opposite party no.2 will take her to his house for resuming conjugal life.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that on 30.11.2023, the opposite party no.2 appeared before the trial Court and the petitioner was also present on that date in the trial Court, but after bail bond of the

¶15

opposite party no.2 was accepted, he did not take the petitioner to his house.

¶16

Today, the opposite party no.2 is physically present in this Court and submits that keeping in view the fact that the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner are living separately for seven years and the opposite party no.2 is paying monthly maintenance regularly to the petitioner, if the petitioner, in fact is interested to resume conjugal life, the opposite party no.2 is ready and willing to take her to his house at Telo and undertakes to come frequently to Telo from his present place of posting at Galsi, Burdwan, West Bengal. The petitioner has joined through video conferencing. The petitioner is not ready and willing to reside at Telo to resume conjugal life with the petitioner.

¶17

Keeping in view, the unwillingness and uncooperative attitude of the petitioner or for resumption of conjugal life with her husband, this Court is of the considered view that since there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of tampering with evidence or not cooperating with the trial of the case, hence, this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.6632 of 2023, be cancelled.

¶18

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit is dismissed.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

19/09/2025 Abhiraj/

Farzana Parween v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farzana Parween v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Batra Alias Jagjit Batra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Shri Gopi Krishna Chaubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Kumar Mishra Alias Shashi Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chetlal Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Vineeta Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdeo Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand