Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31037/2017dismissed

Shaista Praveen v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-07-24Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31037 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -629 Year- 2014 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUNGER ======================================================

1. Shaista Praveen, W/o Md. Aadil Raja Sabri and D/o Md. Ejaj, resident of Village/Mohalla- Churamba, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Munger, At Present resident of Village- Banotha, Police Station- Muffasil, DistrictMunger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Md. Aadil Raja Sabri, S/o Md. Faiz Ahmad Sabri, resident of VillageChuramba, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Munger. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bisheshwar Ram ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner claims to be the wife of Opposite party No.2, which is being denied by Opposite party no.2. He has been made accused of the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has been allowed bail by the Court below on his appearance. The Opposite party No.2 had filed an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. No. 40963 of 2015. This Court disposed of the said anticipatory bail application with an observation that the Opposite party No.2 moved before the Court below for regular bail, after making

certain observations. Considering those observations, the Court below has granted the Opposite party No.2 regular bail. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail mainly on the ground that Opposite party No.2 used forged documents for the purpose of his release on bail. I am not convinced with the grounds taken for cancellation of bail. There is no allegation of misuse of privilege of bail. The document which the petitioner relied on for the purpose of grant of regular bail cannot be held to be ingenuine for cancellation of bail, in the present proceeding.

This application has no merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U