Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Prabha Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2137 of 2017
----
Smt. Prabha Toppo, wife of Raju Bodra, resident of Dariadih, P.O.
Pachamba, PS Giridih (M), District Giridih (Jharkhand)
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Raju Bodra, son of Samuel Bodra, resident of Village-Dandiyadih, PO-
Pachamba, PS-Giridih(M), District-Giridih (Jharkhand)
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State :- Smt. Prabha Toppo, Advocate
----
8/01.11.2022 This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
18.05.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in
Misc. Case No.02 of 2015 arising out of Mahila P.S.Case No.19 of 2011,
corresponding to G.R. No.3806 of 2011 whereby the prayer for
cancellation of bail granted to the O.P.No.2 has been rejected by the
learned court.
Mr. A.K.Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that O.P.No.2 has been granted bail in A.B.A. No.314 of 2012 by order
dated 06.08.2012 and the same was granted on the undertaking that the
O.P.No.2 shall keep the petitioner with all dignity. He submits that the
O.P.No.2 has not complied the said undertaking. He further submits that
the petitioner again filed the petition before this Court in which direction
was issued to make enquiry about the allegation about the non-
compliance of the undertaking given by the O.P.No.2 in the A.B.A
petition. He submits that the mother of the O.P.No.2 has also stated in
that enquiry before the learned court that O.P.No.2 has not complied with
the undertaking given in the A.B.A. petition. He further submits that the
O.P.No.2 is unnecessarily lingering the trial. He submits that the learned
court has rejected the cancellation of bail petition by order dated
18.05.2017 on the ground that the trial is going on and the case is at the
stage of evidence.
On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that the petitioner is
residing in the house of the O.P.No.2. He further submits that the trial
has already proceeded and five witnesses have been examined.
In view of the above submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties it appears that on the terms and conditions
whereby on the undertaking given by the petitioner the A.B.A. petition
was allowed and the said undertaking was not complied by the petitioner
filed before this Court and the Court has directed the learned trial court
to enquire into the matter and in enquiry the mother of the O.P.No.2 has
also disclosed that the O.P.No.2 has not complied with the undertaking. It
is well settled that the bail is not required to be cancelled once it is
granted as has been held by this Court in the case of Amr Chouhan @
Amar Singh Chouhan v. The State of Jharkhand and Another, 2016 SCC
OnLine Jhar 1018 (Cr.M.P.No.255 of 2016). Paragraph no.11 of the said
judgment is quoted below.:
"11. It, thus, appears that ratio with respect to
cancellation of bail has been clearly laid down, inasmuch as,
non-fulfillment of the terms of the compromise cannot be a
basis for cancelling bail. Moreover, some doubt definitely creeps
out, since the opposite party no.2 was purported to be treated
at Dhanbad on 10.12.2015 for an assault which had taken place
on 04.12.2015 at Asansole in the State of West Bengal. It is an
admitted position that the occurrence of purported assault had
taken place on 04.12.2012; she was treated on 10.12.2015 at
Dhanbad and the application for cancellation of bail was filed
on 10.12.2015 by the opposite party no.2, but the injury report
was never brought on record along with an application dated
10.12.2015 filed for cancellation of bail. Subsequently, by way of
list of documents filed on 18.12.2015 the alleged injury report
has been brought on record. In such circumstance, therefore, I
find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, Dhanbad, did
not consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter while
cancelling the bail granted earlier to the petitioner in his order
dated 05.01.2016."
Considering that the evidence is already going on and five
witnesses have already been examined and the matter is pending for
disposal before the learned court and all the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the O.P.No.2 can be raised
before the learned trial court as the trial has proceeded and the O.P.No.2
has already been granted bail, this petition is being disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate the case in the final argument
before the learned trial court and as the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2
submits that the steps have been taken by the learned court and for
procuring the appearance of the witnesses the warrant has already been
issued by the learned trial court and he submits that O.P.No.2 will
cooperate in the trial.
In view of the submission of the learned counsels for the
O.P.No.2 as well as the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with liberty
to make out their case before the learned trial court and the learned trial
court shall expedite the trial and will conclude the same as early as
possible.
With above observation and direction Cr.M.P.No.2137 of
2017 stands disposed of.
I.A if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
