Sulekha Kumari v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11510 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -667 Year- 2014 Thana -NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Sulekha Kumari, w/o- Manoj Kumar, resident of village Marsua, P.S. Wen (Nalanda) , District - Nalanda at present of Dr. Surendra Prasad, resident of village Kurthiya, P.S. Chandi, district Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Manoj Kumar son of Satendra Kumar resident of village Marsua, P.S. (wen) Nalanda, district Nalanda.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nityanand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The petitioner has prayed for cancellation of order dated 22.02.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30222 of 2015 whereby the opposite party no.2 has been granted bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 has re-married and has been neglecting the petitioner after the order passed by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to once again leave her matrimonial home along with her child as she was neglected and was also suffering for want of education for her child. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11510 of 2018 (6) dt.01-08-2018 2/3 counter affidavit in which he has demonstrated that the petitioner is being paid the amount, as was agreed upon between the parties in the Family Court, and therefore, she is being well taken care of but during the period, the opposite party no. 2 was away for some training at Dehradun, the petitioner went back to her paternal home along with her father and child and now the present application for cancellation of bail has been filed. The matter was also placed before the trial Court and the trial Court tried to bring about some amicable settlement but failed to do so as the girl (petitioner) denied to go back to her husband home and now the present application for cancellation has been made out making same and similar charges of re-marrying which, however, has not been proved by the petitioner after enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 2 submits that no case of cancellation is made out as the opposite party no. 2 has not misused the privilege of bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties and learned counsel for the State, in my opinion, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. There is no substantial reason and/or explanation for misuse of privilege of bail.
In view of such facts and circumstances of the case,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11510 of 2018 (6) dt.01-08-2018 3/3 the present cancellation for bail stands dismissed. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T