Simran Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73075 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-970 Year-2023 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== Simran Kumari Wife of Rohit Kumar, Daughter of Sanjay Saw Resident of Village - Sarna Toli, Shanti Nagar, Chatakpur, Police Station - Ratu, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand), at present resident of Village - Beech Bazar Rajauli, Police Station - Rajauli, District - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rohit Kumar Son of Shyam Babu Resident of Village - Sarna Toli, Shanti Nagar, Chatakpur, Police Station - Ratu, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kshem Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP of the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judg-V, Nawada vide order dated 29.07.2024 in A.B.P. No.1359 of 2024.

3. Upon perusal of petition, the grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2, which appear to be urged on behalf of petitioner is the supervening circumstances of threats being given by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioner after granting of bail and is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73075 of 2024(4) dt.12-01-2026 2/2 allegedly attempting to pressurize him to withdraw the present case and proceed with divorce.

4. The impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Court concerned is well considered order, based on substantial reasons, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the application is dismissed.

5. So far as the ground relating to the anticipation of pressurizing the petitioner to withdraw the case is concerned, the same cannot be said to be tenable in law. However, in case the ground of supervening circumstance in form of threatening etc. being given by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioner actually exists, the petitioner always has liberty to file an application urging such ground before the learned Court concerned which had granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T