Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14750/2016rejected

Priti Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-06-22Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14750 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -686 Year- 2012 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Priti Devi, son of Rajesh Prasad Gond, D/o Sheopujan Prasad, resident of Mohalla: Shobhaganj, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram (T), District-Rohtas .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Prasad Gond @ Garjan, son of Late Vishwanath Ram Gond, resident of Village-Sonpurwa, P.S. & DistrictGadhwa (Jharkhand) .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indu Kumari Srivastava, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This application has been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 18.11.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44236 of 2012. The opposite party No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner. He was allowed bail by this Court in view of fact that relationship between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 might improve and they may attempt to resolve their dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite undertaking given by the opposite party No. 2 that he will keep the petitioner with honour and dignity, he has misbehaved

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14750 of 2016 (2) dt.22-06-2016 2/2 with the petitioner and, therefore, the bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 should be cancelled.

I do not think the allegations as made in the application make out ground for cancellation of bail. Apparently, matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 is the reason behind the entire litigation. This application does not deserve any merit, it is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U T