Rekha Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1738 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 1085 of 2014
                 Rekha Dutta                               ... Petitioner
                                       -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Hiralal Dutta                            ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioner         : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2              : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
                                             -----

04/25.04.2023     Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pratiush Lala,

learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.01.2014

passed in C.P. Case No.195 of 2012, whereby, the petition filed by the

petitioner for cancellation of bail of opposite party no.2 has been rejected,

pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail was allowed to

the opposite party no.2 with certain conditions and such condition has not

been fulfilled and that is why the petition for cancellation of bail was filed by

the petitioner before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Dhanbad and the said petition was dismissed. Against that order, this

petition has been filed. He submits that bail granted to opposite party no.2

may kindly be cancelled.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that trial is already

split up and trial is going on. He further submits that after the present case,

further case was lodged against opposite party no.2 in which he was taken

into remand.

5. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 and

finds that the learned counsel has dismissed the petition filed by the

petitioner considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee; [2004 (2) Supreme

160], wherein, it has been held that what the court has to bear in mind

while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is further

well settled that the bail is a rule and cancellation of bail is exception.

Looking into the order passed by the learned court, this Court finds that

there is no illegality in the impugned order.

6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/