Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3204/2019dismissed

Sushila Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-01-29Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3204 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-496 Year-2011 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== Sushila Devi wife of Pranub Kumar @ Pranav Kumar D/O Ram Sevak Singh Resident of village-Udamarekha P.S-Katihar Dist-Katihar (m) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Pranub Kumar @ Pranav Kumar Baij Nath Singh Resident of villageHasanpur P.S Jandaha Distt-Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2019 This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no.2 vide order dated 27.03.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38489 of 2011 and the main ground for cancellation is that by this order dated 27.03.2012, the petitioner-husband opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month, but he is not paying the same amount for last two years and as such he has violated the condition of the order of the court.

Heard learned APP also.

During the course of argument a copy of order of Sessions Judge passed in Cr. Rev. No. 39 of 2019 has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, from which it

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3204 of 2019(2) dt.29-01-2019 2/2 appears that maintenance case and matrimonial suit are pending before the Family Court and it further appears that opposite party no.2 has taken a plea that she has already married with another person and as such she has moved before this Court for cancellation of order dated 27.03.2012.

Having heard both sides, it appears that maintenance case and matrimonial suit are pending before the Family Court and in such view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the order dated 27.03.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38489 of 2011 with regard to granting bail to the petitioner (opposite party no.2).

However, learned Family Court is directed to expedite the maintenance case filed by the petitioner so as to come to the definite conclusion and it is needless to say that opposite party no.2 has to cooperate in disposal of that.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/- U T