Laxmi Kumari Barnwal vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties. No one turns up on behalf of the opp. party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls, though notice has validly been served upon opp. Party no. 2.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) of the CrPC 1973 with the prayer for cancellation of bail granted the opp. Party no. 2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Giridih vide order dated 24.02.2023 in ABP no. 1945 of 2022 in connection with Dhanwar P.S. (Ghorthamba O.P.) case no. 195 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 307, 354, 498A, 34 of the IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and the charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

The allegation made by the petitioner is that the Opp. Party no. 2 being the husband of the petitioner herein, after being granted the privilege of anticipatory bail in the earlier complaint case no. 1384 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, / 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P.Act. in compliance of such anticipatory bail order, took the petitioner herein to his house to resume conjugal life but it is alleged that the Opp. Party no. 2 and his family members demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- and when the said demand was not fulfilled, the petitioner was assaulted and was not provided meal and she was treated inhumanly. It is also alleged that the brother of the Opp. Party no. 2 entered inside the room of the petitioner and used force but somehow, the petitioner could save her modesty and on being intimated by the petitioner, the Opp. Party no. 2 came back from his place of work at Delhi but the family members of the Opp. Party no. 2 told that the petitioner is a characterless lady and abused her family members and reiterated the demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- and when the petitioner protested against the same, on 21.07.2022 at about 8.30 PM, the Opp. Party no. 2 pressed a pillow on the face of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner became senseless and after regaining her sense, the petitioner rang her father to come to save her.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Giridih while granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considered that the parties have resumed their conjugal life on compromise and a complaint petition with respect to similar allegation of demand of dowry and torture after the marriage is still pending. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Giridih also considered that the petitioner was personnel of BSF and after leaving his service, he has joined the service in the Ministry of Defence as a Chinese Translator and by thus considering, gave the privilege of anticipatory bail to the O.P. No. 2 herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Victim ‘X’ vs. The State of Bihar and Another reported in 2025 INSC 877 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem reported in (2024) 10 SCC 768 wherein in para 27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner but if a bail order is unreasoned or perverse, the same will be always open to be interfered by the superior courts.

It is next submitted that keeping in view of the serious nature of allegation against the O.P.No. 2, involving the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, learned Additional Sessions Judge, ought not have granted the anticipatory bail to the opp. Party no. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem and Another reported in 2024 INSC 438, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of P v. vs. State of M.P. reported in (2022) 15 SCR 211, in para 24 of which reads as under :-

“24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or -perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court."

and submits that in that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also held that though in ordinary circumstances, the court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court, hence, it is submitted that prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned Addl. PP on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits by drawing attention of the court to the counter affidavit filed in this case that the police in the course of investigation of the case has not found the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC to be true; as though the Investigating Officer visited the house of the informant on 10.01.2023 and asked her to produce the X-ray report and X-ray plate but she avoided to produce the same by saying that she will produce the same later on but later on, she intimated the Investigating Officer of the case that the same has been misplaced. Even though the Investigating Officer gave notice under Section 91 of CrPC with the direction to produce the medical reports within three days but she has not produced the same, without any plausible reason.

It is next submitted by learned Addl. PP that since learned Additional Session Judge, has given the privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that a complaint petition with respect to the same allegation of demand of dowry and torture after the marriage is still pending and this is the second case, so it cannot be termed as perverse and illegal, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the submissions made at the Bar by the Addl.PP, the police during investigation of the case did not find the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC to be true so, that leaves the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC to be the sole non -bailable offence. So far as the allegation of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC against the O.P. No. 2 is concerned, the same is not made out against the O.P. No. 2.

The undisputed fact remains that the Complaint Case no. 1384 of 2019 filed by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 and others is still pending. Under such circumstances, keeping in view of the facts of the case; in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, II Giridih cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse order warranting interference of this court in exercise of power under Section 439 (2) of CrPC.

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.