KALYANI KUMARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. Since both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties arising out of the same complaint case no. 205 of 2017 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, hence, both these petitions are disposed of with this common order.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the common petitioner in both the cases, that the opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3380 of 2019, is the father-in-law of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2019 is the husband of the petitioner. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3380 of 2019 was given privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.01.2019 in ABA No. 5745 of 2018 and the opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2019 was given privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.02.2019 in ABA No. 6219 of 2018 with the condition that neither the petitioner nor his family member will disturb or annoy the complainant in any manner nor will they tamper with the evidence or threaten any witness of the complainant during the pendency of the case. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the both opposite parties of these cases, were released on bail in compliance of the said orders of this Court passed in the said anticipatory bail applications, the petitioner of these two criminal miscellaneous petitions went to Bokaro for attending Original suit no. 13 of 2016 filed by the opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2019 for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2019 threatened the petitioner and tried to create pressure upon her and in this respect, the petitioner submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police on 31.07.2019. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner of these two criminal miscellaneous also submitted an informatory application to the SDO, Bokaro regarding the said incident. It is next submitted that the petitioner due to threat and mental harassment of opposite party no. 2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2019 apprehending danger to her life, hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite part nos. 2 of these two petitions be cancelled. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that except the incident of 31.07.2019, there is no other incident for seeking cancellation of bail of the opposite parties. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 29.08.2019, there was mediation between the parties, which failed. It us lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 of both the cases be cancelled.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in both cases, on the other hand submits that after lodging of complaint by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, an investigation was done by police and subsequently, on 15.09.2019, a report was submitted by police wherein, it has been stated that the allegation levelled against the opposite party no. 2 is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in both cases, that the allegation of single instance of an alleged act of aggression, committed by the opposite party no.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2019, even which was found to be false upon investigation by police does not give rise any cause of action for cancellation of bail and thus, there is no plausible reason to cancel the bail granted the opposite party no. 2 of both cases. Hence, it is submitted that these two criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed.