Sangita Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24897 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -112 Year- 2014 Thana -BIHIYA District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Sangita Devi Wife of Anil Thakur, Daughter of Narbadeshwar Pandey Resident of Village - Rajmahal Dih, P.O. Chakiya, P.S. Sikarhatta, District - Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anil Thakur Son of Triloki Thakur Resident of village - Gaura, P.S. Bihiyan, District - Bhojpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.N.Thakur(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 26-10-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail, granted to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27586 of 2014 in connection with Bihiyan (Bahoranpur OP) P.S. Case No. 112 of 2014, pending in the court of learned CJM, Bhojpur at Ara. The opposite party no. 2 being the husband of the petitioner-informant was granted provisional anticipatory bail for one year in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24897 of 2015 (2) dt.26-10-2016 2/2 Prohibition Act, on the submission on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that he is ready to keep the petitioner-informant as wife with full dignity and honour. The provisional bail was to be confirmed within one year by the learned court below in three eventualities:- (i) if the matrimonial harmony is substantially restored or (ii) if the informant fails to appear before the learned court below or (iii) if the informant deliberately gets reluctant to reconcile the issue. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisional bail of opposite party no. 2 has not been confirmed.

It appears that the period of provisional bail has lapsed on 09.02.2016, hence the opposite party no. 2 is no longer on bail.

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. Let the learned court below pass appropriate order in the matter.

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