Seema Devi @ Sima Devi vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned APP appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 on 15.05.2018 in A.B.A. No. 1527 of 2018.

The opposite party No. 2 is an accused in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2017 instituted for the offences punishable u/s 323/ 498A of

the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party No. 2 is the husband of the informant. The opposite party No. 2 had filed

an anticipatory bail application before this Court in ABA No. 1527 of 2018 which was disposed of on 15.05.2018 on the condition that the petitioner

shall be paid ad interim maintenance @ of Rs. 2500/- per month from July, 2018 till the disposal of the case. It was further indicated therein that if the

opposite party No. 2 defaults in making payment of ad interim maintenance for two successive months, it was open for the petitioner to file an

application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No. 2.

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the order dated 156.05.2018 was being complied with by the opposite party No.

2, but subsequently after 04.04.2019, the opposite party No. 2 has not paid the amount of ad interim maintenance. Learned counsel submits that on

account of failure on the part of the opposite party No. 2 to make of payment of ad interim maintenance, the petitioner is suffering financially as she

has to look after two children.

On 22.01.2021, the matter was heard and it was fixed for 28.01.2021 with a direction to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the

balance has been deposited or not. On 15.02.2021, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the balance amount of Rs.

30,000/- shall be made available to the petitioner by next date of hearing. The matter was fixed for today and it has been submitted by Mr. Surendra

Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 has not been able to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/-

and he has prayed for further three weeks' time in order to comply with the said conditions.

As per the version of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party No. 2 has not deposited the ad interim maintenance in the account of

the petitioner from 04.04.2019 and though certain amounts were paid in the intervening period, but it appears from the conduct of the opposite party

No. 2 that he is not interested in complying with the conditions laid down in A.B.A. No. 1527 of 2018. Since a liberty was given to the petitioner to

pray for cancellation of bail, if the opposite party No. 2 fails to make payment of ad interim maintenance for two successive months, the petitioner has

accordingly moved this Court by filing this application for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 and regard being had to the facts and

circumstances of the case, which admittedly indicates that the opposite party No. 2 has not complied with the order dated 15.05.2018 passed in ABA

No. 1527 of 2018, the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 in ABA No. 1527 of 2018 is hereby cancelled. The opposite party No. 2 is

directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of two weeks from today.

This application accordingly stands allowed.