The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the bail granted to an accused person of a case cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise have not complied.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the case was lodged against an opposite party no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Petition for anticipatory bail was filed and the session judge considering the compromise between the parties wherein it was decided that the opposite party no.2 would keep the petitioner with full dignity, with an undertaking that he would never torture his wife and she would be maintained genuinely by the opposite party no.2 and that the opposite party no.2 shall not maintain any extra marital affair. Thereafter, the petitioner before the session judge was filed regarding the cancellation of the bail granted, and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present petition was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that after the passing of the order, the behaviour of the opposite party no. 2 was completely changed and he also refused to live with the Petitioner and went to his place of work at Rohtash.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is well-settled law that the bail granted to an accused person of a case cannot be canceled solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise have not been complied
The court furthermore observed that the ground upon which the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled illustratively though not exhaustively are as under:-
- by indulging in similar criminal activity,
- interfering with the course of investigation,
- attempting to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
- threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation,
- there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,
- attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
- attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar.
The court noted that there exists no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of committing any misconduct which would make him liable for cancellation of bail.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Title: Nitu Kumari V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1836 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P.
Advocate for the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
