Vijay Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand And Another

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.09.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.01 of 2012 arising out of Chandwara P.S.Case No.45 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III, Koderma.

Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail in B.P. No.325 of 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in connection the Chandwara P.S.Case No.45 of 2011 with certain terms and condition. He submits that by the impugned order, the learned court has cancelled the bail of the petitioner who happened to be husband of the O.P.No.2. He submits that the terms and condition was there that the petitioner will keep the O.P.No.2 with all dignity after being released from the custody. He submits that the said petition was filed alleging therein that wife was not kept by this petitioner with all dignity and on that ground only the said order of cancellation has been passed. He submits that the petitioner went to the house of the O.P.No.2 and requested to live along with the petitioner. He submits that the family members of the O.P.No.2 had assaulted the petitioner and after sometime they assaulted the petitioner in his house.

The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has resisted the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the said terms and conditions was not fulfilled and the petitioner has never come to O.P.No.2 and the learned court has rightly passed the order.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it appears that the cancellation order is passed for violation of the terms and conditions of the bail order.

It is an admitted position that the case is arising under section 323, 379 and 498 IPC and the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 are husband and wife respectively. In said bail application, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge with condition that the petitioner will keep the O.P.No.2 with all dignity and the allegations are made that the said undertaking was not fulfilled. However, the petitioner has submitted that he has been assaulted by the family members of the O.P.No.2. In the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 wherein it has been held that it is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. Even it has been held in another case that non-fulfillment of any condition cannot be a ground to cancellation of bail once the bail is granted. It is further required to be kept in mind that the rejection of bail is on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done, in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.

In the case in hand only on the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition, the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar(supra), the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law and accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.09.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.01 of 2012 arising out of Chandwara P.S.Case No.45 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-III, Koderma, is set aside.

The petitioner shall be allowed to remain on the same bail bond which has been cancelled by the learned court.

This petition is disposed of.

The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial.