Deepak Singh, S/o Shri Sardar Singh Yadav vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2.

In the present application preferred under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short '' Cr.P.C .''), the petitioner

has prayed for quashing of the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur, Bhabua in Cr.Misc. Case No. 30 of

2016 by which the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide

order dated 20.11.2015 in A.B.P. No. 1127 of 2015 has been

cancelled in exercise of power conferred under Section 439(2) of the

Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been made accused in Complaint Case No. 852 of 2015

in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short '' IPC ''). As the

petitioner was apprehending arrest, he filed an application under

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of Sessions Judge, Kaimur,

vide A.B.P. No. 1127 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned

Sessions Judge on 20.11.2015. At the time of hearing the said

anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner had given an undertaking that

he would keep his wife with respect and dignity in her matrimonial

home and the complainant-wife had also agreed to go back to her

matrimonial home in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner.

He has submitted that subsequently the complainant filed an

application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation

of pre-arrest bail granted vide order dated 20.11.2015 on the ground

that she was ousted by the petitioner from her matrimonial home.

He has submitted that the said allegation leveled by the

complainant was completely false. He has submitted that after living

in the matrimonial home for about five months the complainant

deserted the petitioner and voluntarily left her matrimonial home. He

has submitted that the show cause filed by the petitioner before the

learned Sessions Judge was not appreciated properly and, believing

on the statement of the complainant, the bail of the petitioner was

cancelled.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-

opposite party no.2 has submitted that the petitioner had obtained bail

by giving a false undertaking before the court below that he would

keep the complainant with respect and dignity in her matrimonial

home. He has submitted that after obtaining bail and after keeping the

complainant for a few months in the matrimonial home, the petitioner

again started subjecting her to cruelty and driven her out from the

matrimonial home. He has submitted that in view of the conduct of

the petitioner the court below has rightly cancelled the bail granted to

the petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 439(2) of

the Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the record.

Admittedly, the marriage of the complainant with the

petitioner had taken place more than five years ago. As it was a case

of matrimonial discord and incompatibility and relationship was

strained, a case under Section 498-A of the IPC was instituted. The

complainant has alleged that the petitioner used to subject her to

cruelty whereas the case of the petitioner is that he is innocent and

has been falsely implicated in the case. Under such circumstance, the

petitioner had given an undertaking before the court that he was

willing to keep the complainant with dignity and respect. It is also an

admitted fact that after the pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner

by the court below, vide order dated 20.11.2015, the complainant

lived with the petitioner in the matrimonial home for few months

after which the complainant alleged that she was driven out of the

matrimonial home whereas the petitioner asserts that the complainant

voluntarily deserted him and left the matrimonial home. The stand of

the parties has neither been enquired into nor investigated by anyone.

Thus, it is difficult to come to any definite conclusion as to who is at

fault.

Under such circumstance, in the opinion of this Court,

there was no reasonable ground before the court below to cancel the

bail bond of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

06.02.2017 is set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue on

bail on the bond and sureties already furnished in Complaint Case

No. 852 of 2015 in compliance with the earlier order dated

20.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur, Bhabua.

The application stands allowed.