SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1 of 2013, whereby the conditional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners have been cancelled.

(2.) The petitioners are husband and in-laws of the informant and there is allegation against them to have subjected the informant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners filed their application for anticipatory bail and the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, where the matter was compromised between the parties. On the basis of the compromise, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners with the condition that if the informant was again tortured and cruelty was inflicted upon her in future, then the informant would be at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail. It appears that the informant was again subjected to torture and cruelty and she was driven out of her matrimonial home and she filed the application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners, upon which the impugned order was passed cancelling the anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the Court below in the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners, wherein, it is stated that the husband had undertaken to keep his wife with proper care and dignity Learned counsel has also pointed out from the application filed by the informant in the Court below that there is allegation against the husband to have again subjected the informant to cruelty and torture. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order, so far as it cancels the bail of the other in-laws, at least cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.