Surbhi Vatsa v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35011 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2013 Thana -AKBARNAGAR District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Surbhi Vatsa Wife of Chitranjan Kumar Singh, Daughter of Late Binay Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Kherahia, P.S. Akbar Nagar, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Chitranjan Kumar Singh Son of Indra Bhushan Singh resident of Devi Mandir Road, Hesal Near Gas Godown, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Bhan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amrendra Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 26-10-2016 None appears.

The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail, granted to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 03.03.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26689 of 2014 in connection with Akbarnagar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2013, pending in the court of learned CJM, Bhagalpur.

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 Prohibition Act, on the submission on behalf of opposite party no.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35011 of 2015 (2) dt.26-10-2016 2/2 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) on substantial restoration of the matrimonial harmony; (ii) if the informant gets reluctant to reconcile the issue; and (iii) or if the informant fails to appear before the learned court below. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the provisional bail of opposite party no. 2 has been confirmed. It appears that the period of provisional bail has lapsed on 02.03.2016, hence the opposite party no. 2 is no longer on provisional 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