Anamika Kumari @ Richa @ Ambika Kumari v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13708 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2013 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Munger ==================================================== Anamika Kumari @ Richa @ Ambika Kumari, wife of Anupam Paswan, daughter of Faudi Paswan, resident of Mohalla Chhoti Keshavpur, P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger, ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anupam Paswan, son of Sri Bhikhari Paswan, r/o. Moh. New Colony, Daulatpur, B.M.P. No. 9, P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger, presently working as Executive Logistic Sharp Business System (India) Limited, 214, 214-221,Ansal Tower, 30 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019.
... ... Opposite Party/s ==================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s:
Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay, Adv For the OP No. 2 :
Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 28-11-2018 This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail/bail bond, granted to the opposite party no. 2 by order dated 05.08.2014 in Cr. Misc. No. 14740 of 2014 in Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2013 for the offences alleged under Sections 498(A)/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments have not been made regularly by the opposite party no. 2 in default of the conditions for grant of anticipatory bail in the order dated 05.08.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14740 of 2014 (Annexure-1).
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that as a matter of fact the petitioner herself has been reluctant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13708 of 2017(15) dt.28-11-2018 2/2 in accepting the payments offered from time to time and the same had to be deposited in the Nazarat of the learned Court below after obtaining permission of the learned Court (Annexures C and D series of the reply to the supplementary affidavit).
4. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not satisfied that any valid case has been made out for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the OP No. 2.
5. A petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was earlier filed in Cr. Misc. No. 50221 of 2014 on similar grounds which was however dismissed by order dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure-6). The fact of deposits by the OP No. 2 in the Nazarat of the learned Court below has not been disputed by the petitioner. As observed in para 4 of the said order dated 17.08.2016, the petitioner had refused to disclose the details of her bank account to enable the OP No. 2 to make payments and even after lapse of more than two years, the petitioner has still not informed the OP No. 2 about her bank details.
6. Cr. Misc. No. 13708 of 2017 accordingly stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT U T