SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) THIS is an application for cancellation for anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No. 2 accused by this Court in A.B.A. No. 190 of 2002.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time when anticipatory bail application was moved before this Court, by that time, compromise has broken down and by suppressing this fact, the accused/ opposite party No. 2 has been able to get the order of anticipatory bail in his favour from the High Court on the same compromise petition which had broken down and, therefore, by suppressing the fact and by playing fraud upon the Court, the opposite party No. 2/accused has got this anticipatory bail and therefore, the anticipatory bail granted, to him is fit to be cancelled.