Asha Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13763 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -770 Year- 2012 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Asha Devi Wife of Satyendra Kahar @ Satyendra Kumar Resident of village- Konki, Police Station- Sheo Sagar (Baddi), District- Rohtas at Sasaram .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Satyendra Kahar @ Satyendra Kumar Son of Late Lallu Kahar Resident of village- Konki, P.O- Nad, Police Station- Sheo Sagar (Baddi), DistrictRohtas at Sasaram. At Present Address- Nand Nagari, B.2/39, Sahandra Bus Stand Chauk, New Delhi at Near Pathan Hotel .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Ansural Haque, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-11-2016 The petitioner is the wife of opposite party No. 2. She seeks cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 by virtue of an order dated 02.07.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4719 of 2014.

It is the case of the petitioner that privilege of anticipatory bail was granted to opposite party No. 2 with the condition that if the complainant/the petitioner intended to join the opposite party No. 2, he shall be under obligation to take and maintain her and in case the opposite party No. 2 refused to maintain her, the anticipatory bail shall stand cancelled. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that she intended to stay with the opposite party No. 2, he has refused to keep and maintain her. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13763 of 2016 (3) dt.29-11-2016 2/2 the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite party No. 2, opposing the prayer for cancellation of bail. It has been contended on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that despite steps having been taken to keep the petitioner, she declined to stay with him and the allegation as made in this application seeking cancellation of bail are incorrect. It has been argued that the petitioner is delaying conclusion of trial by seeking unnecessary adjournment before the court below. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is not producing any witness before the court below.

No ground for cancellation of bail, which are well recognized and defined has been made out in the present application.

I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly rejected.

It is observed that the court below shall make endeavour to take the trial expedited and concluded within a reasonable period of time.

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