Puja Devi @ Krishna Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10294 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2136 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Puja Devi @ Krishna Devi Wife of Sonu Jha @ Abhishek Kumar Jha, D/ODigambar Thakur R/O Village- Khagura, P.S.- Katra, District- Muzaffarpur, Presently R/O Village- Jajuar, Tole- Anayaypur, P.S.- Katra, DistrictMuzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sonu Jha @ Abhishek Kumar Jha Son of Satish Chandra Jha R/O VillageKhagura, P.S.- Katra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-07-2023 This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, granted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22719 of 2019 to the opposite party No. 2 in connection with Muzaffarpur Complaint Case No. 2136 (C) of 2018 (Trial No. 1382 of 2021) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2 on the ground that he obtained bail by making false statement. He submits that opposite party No. 2 got bail on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10294 of 2022(2) dt.05-07-2023 2/2 undertaking given by him that he would keep petitioner with full honour and dignity. But after obtaining bail, opposite party No. 2 has threatened this petitioner and filed a suit bearing Case No. 31 of 2021 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur for decree of dissolution of marriage. However, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that it was mere submission of the opposite party No. 2 (petitioner therein) and was not the condition for grant of bail.
From bare perusal of order dated 18.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22719 of 2019, it is manifest that opposite party No. 2 was granted bail by considering the merit of the case and there was no such condition. In the present case, petitioner has not made any good ground to interfere with the order dated 18.02.2020.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T