Phulmani Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21654 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -472 Year- 2011 Thana -KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE DistrictKHAGARIA ====================================================== Phulmani Devi wife of Jitendra Poddar and daughter of Late Asharfi Poddar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Jitendra Poddar son of Rajendra Poddar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K.Khare (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-10-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner-informant and the State.

The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail, granted to opposite party no. 2 being the husband of the petitioner-complainant vide order dated 24.04.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.12636/2013 in connection with Complaint Case 472C/2011, pending in the Court of learned CJM, Khagaria, wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21654 of 2014 (2) dt.26-10-2016 2/3 The opposite party no.2 being husband of petitioner-complainant was granted provisional anticipatory bail for one year, on submission to keep the petitioner-complainant as wife with full dignity and honour. The provisional anticipatory bail of opposite party no.2 was to be confirmed by the learned Court below on substantial restoration of the matrimonial harmony within one year or if the complainant deliberately refused to reside with the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitionercomplainant that opposite party no.2 failed to comply the undertaking given before this Court.

It appears that the period of provisional bail has lapsed on 23.04.2014, hence, the opposite party no.2 is no longer on provisional bail.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that there is nothing on record to suggest that the provisional bail of opposite party no.2 has been confirmed by the learned court below.

In the circumstances, the present application for cancellation of provisional bail of opposite party no.2 has become infructuous and accordingly, it is disposed of.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21654 of 2014 (2) dt.26-10-2016 3/3 Let the learned Court below pass appropriate order in the matter.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T