NIRMALA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by petitioner has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by this Bench on 13.6.2005 in Cr. Misc. No. 16678 of 2005.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner filed a complaint cast against her husband who is opposite party No. 2 and some others under Sections 495. 498 -A, 406. 307. 420, 323, 379, 120 -B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the grounds of torture and assault on her by accused persons on account of demand of dowry, snatching her golden chain by accused persons and their making an attempt to commit her murder and drawing money of her insurance policy by forged signature etc. Opposite party No. 2 filed Cr. Misc. No. 16676 of 2005 and by order dated 13.6.2005, after hearing the counsel of petitioner and opposite party and considering the proposal of opposite party No. 2 that he was ready to take the petitioner with him and also submissions made on behalf of petitioner that she was also ready to go with the petitioner provided she is kept with all comforts and dignity O.P. No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail. By this order, opposite party No. 2 was further directed to go within a month from the date of order to the house of petitioner for taking her with him to his house and keeping her with all comforts and dignity without any torture.

(3.) IN the complaint petition itself, petitioner has stated that she was married to opposite party No. 2 on 22.5.1986. She further alleged that opposite party No. 2 married one Anamika Kumari with whom he started living in a house keeping petitioner confined in a room and was engaged in the planning to kill her but she on 6.6.2004 escaped from the house of opposite party No. 2 and came to her nihar from Patna. The fact that after about nineteen years of her marriage. petitioner filed complaint against opposite party No. 2 for her torture on account of demand of dowry was also taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail to opposite party No. 2. In spite of allegation by petitioner that opposite party No. 2 had already married another girl, the petitioner on 13.6.2005 accepted the offer of opposite party No. 2 to go to his house provided she is kept with all comforts and dignity and not subjected to torture. Opposite Party No. 2 has filed the copy of informatory petition which, according to him. was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 11.7.2005 stating therein that in compliance of order dated 13.6.2005, he visited the house of his in -laws on 10.7.2005 and requested petitioner and her brothers to allow petitioner to go with him but to his utter surprise, he was abused and assaulted by them and petitioner refused to go with him. This copy shows that it was placed before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.7.2005. The fact that petitioner is getting a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - per month as per order of the Court passed in matrimonial suit has not been disputed by petitioner and Annexure - 2 further supports the submission of opposite party No. 2 on the point of this payment. Counsel of opposite party No. 2 has submitted that opposite party No. 2 is a Government servant and if anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2 is cancelled in that case, there is every possibility that he will be remanded to custody and in that case, he will be put under suspension and will not be in a position to pay maintenance per month to petitioner. Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party No. 2 has been sought on the ground that he did not comply the directions of this Court which was given to him at the time of grant of anticipatory bail for going to the house of his in - laws within a period of one month from the date of order for bringing the petitioner with him. As stated above, case of opposite party No. 2 is that in compliance of order, he went to the house of his in -laws but petitioner refused to go with him and her brothers and parents did not allow her to go with him for which he had already filed an informatory petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the next day itself. Under this situation of claim and rival claim, I find that no ground for cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2 has been made out. The case is already pending against opposite party No. 2 and he has to face the trial.