SUBRATO KUMAR GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

(2.) In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 209.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. Petition No.10 of 2014 whereby and where under the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner has been allowed and the bail granted to the petitioner in B.P. No.839 of 2013 was cancelled.

(3.) It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after the institution of the case under sections 498A, 406 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner had surrendered on 18.06.2013 before the learned court below. It has also been stated that the petitioner was granted provisional bail on 20.07.2013 which was finally confirmed vide order dated 20.08.2013 in B.P. No.839 of 201 Learned senior counsel further submits that the order dated 20.08.2013 confirming the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is based not only on the undertaking given by the petitioner but also considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the period of detention undergone by the petitioner. It has thus been submitted that impugned order dated 22.09.2016 has merely concentrated itself on the non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the undertaking given by the petitioner and not on the other issue which was considered by the learned trial court while granting bail to the petitioner.