Pushpanjali Kumari v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22112 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1838 Year- 2011 Thana -BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Pushpanjali Kumari Daughter of Chaurbhuj Singh. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Kumar Anand sonof Bhuneshwar Singh .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Nath For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-10-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitionercomplainant 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 24.10.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.24520/2013 in connection with Complaint Case No.1838C/2011, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Bhojpur, wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22112 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 undertaking to take the petitioner-complainant from her parents' house on 12th November, 2013 to keep her 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 in three eventualities :- (i) on substantial restoration of the matrimonial harmony; (ii) or if the complainant is reluctant to reconcile the issue; and (iii) or if the complainant fails to appear before the learned Court below. 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 23.10.2014, 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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22112 of 2014 (2) dt.26-10-2016 3/3 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) Ashwini/- U T