Jharkhand High Court
Kanhaiya Lal Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 245 of 2018
-----
Kanhaiya Lal Yadav ... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rita Devi ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
06 / Dated : 01.11.2023
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
04.03.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in Jamtara P.S.
Case No. 165 of 2013 (G.R. No. 481 of 2013) whereby and whereunder, the
bail of the petitioner has been cancelled for breach of condition of anticipatory
bail application no. 4427 of 2013 wherein condition was imposed that the
petitioner will not subject his wife/informant to any cruelty.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
married to the complainant/informant in 2003 and the FIR was lodged on
24.05.2013 after the decree for restitution of conjugal right was passed in Title
Matrimonial Suit No. 39 of 2010 on 15.04.2013. Instead of complying with the
order passed in the matrimonial suit criminal case has been filed after ten years
from the marriage against the Petitioner to wreak vengeance.
3. There is no material to show that there has been any breach of the condition of
order granting bail. No station diary entry was made and no complaint was
made to any authority regarding said breach of condition of bail but merely
acting on the complaint of the complainant regarding the said torture, the order
of cancellation of bail has been passed.
4. It is submitted that against the cancellation order, the petitioner has moved the
revisional court which was dismissed against which the instant petition has
been filed.
5. It is also submitted that grant of bail in a case under Section 498A of IPC is
also covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. {2014(8) SCC 273} and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,
(2021) 10 SCC 773.
6. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the
informant/complainant, have opposed the quashing petition and submitted that
the informant has given a categorical statement before the Court below that
quite in defiance to the undertaking given to the Court when the informant
went to her matrimonial home, she was assaulted, abused and ousted from
there.
7. Law is settled that there must be cogent, compelling and overwhelming
circumstances for cancellation of bail under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
Grounds for cancellation broadly are:
I. Interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of
justice.
II. Evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice.
It has been held in Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee, (2004) 3
SCC 388
The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the
provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does
not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of
a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such
compromise. What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is
what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion,
having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to
the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to
the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of
law.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and for the reasons discussed
above this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in
law and is accordingly, set aside.
This Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
