Puneet Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 669 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. M. P. No. 1724 of 2022
                                   -----

Puneet Gupta                             ...      .... Petitioner
                            Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Saraswati Gupta                       ...      .... Opp. Parties
                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Petitioner    : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
For the State         : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2    : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
                            -----
Oral Order
06 / Dated : 08.02.2023

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.04.2022 wherein the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was earlier on bail by order dated 30.03.2019 which was granted on the basis of the agreement dated 28.03.2019 entered into between opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner and also considering the merit of the case and period of custody. The petitioner was working in Delhi and as per the term of condition, opposite party no. 2 to join him at Delhi. However, later on, differences arose and she returned back to Jamshedpur and lodged the case. After opposite party no. 2 returned to Jamshedpur, the petitioner filed a case for restitution of conjugal right being H.M.A. No. 587 of 2020 at the Family Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi. The case was transferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the petition filed by opposite party no. 2. Relying on the judgment of (2004) 3 SCC 388, cancellation of bail cannot be made only on the breach of term of settlement. There should be specific ground for cancellation as laid down in Section 437 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the petition. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that this is a case where the sole purpose of entering into agreement was to get bail and once the petitioner was enlarged on bail he did not honour any of the term of agreement. In this way, the petitioner has played fraud on the Court as well the informant. The informant tried her best and went to Delhi to stay there but once she was subjected to cruelty, she had to return back to Jamshedpur.

4. Marital discord is the genesis of in the present case. From the earlier order passed granting the petitioner bail, it is apparent that it was both on merit as well as considering the agreement between the parties.

Under the circumstance, this is not a fit case for cancellation of bail. The impugned order set aside and the petitioner will appear before the court on the basis of the earlier bail granted.

Criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT