Priyanka Devi @ Rimmi Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43170 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -417 Year- 2013 Thana -BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBUXAR ====================================================== Priyanka Devi @ Rimmi Devi Daughter of Rajendra Gupta, Resident of Village - Itardhi, P.S. - Itardhi, District - Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Amit Kumar Gupta @ Alok Gupta Son of Sri Harish Chandra Gupta @ Kanhaiya Resident of Village & Post - Bankey Ganj, P.S. Mailani, District - Lakhimpur Khiri, Uttar Pradesh.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad (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 20.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2083 of 2014 in connection with Complaint Case No. 417C of 2013, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Buxar.

The opposite party no. 2 being the husband of the petitioner-complainant was granted provisional anticipatory bail for one year in a complaint case wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43170 of 2014 (2) dt.26-10-2016 2/2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the submission on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that he is ready to keep the petitioner-complainant as wife with full dignity and honour. The provisional bail was to be confirmed by the learned court below in three eventualities - (i) if the matrimonial harmony is substantially restored or (ii) if the complainant fails to appear before the learned court below or (iii) if the complainant deliberately gets reluctant to reconcile the issue. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that opposite party no. 2 fails to comply the undertaking given before this Court, though, admits that the provisional bail has not been confirmed.

It appears that the period of provisional bail has lapsed on 19.03.2015, 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 is not maintainable and accordingly, it is disposed of. Let the learned court below pass appropriate order in the matter.

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