In Bihar, husband’s bail can be cancelled for “violation of compromise” !! Tell me we need MORE judges !

In this case The husband’s life is seems to be a mess because “….Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has been granted bail in the said complaint case on 18.05.2009 and thereafter on an application filed by the complainant (opposite party no. 2) being Cr. Misc. No. 25 of 2012, by the impugned order, bail has been cancelled. Learned counsel submits that once bail had been granted, the same could not be cancelled only on the ground of violation of compromise as it is not provided under Chapter XXXIII of the Code which deals with grant and cancellation of bail. …”

And we all know what happens when you bring back a 498a woman ?? “…..after being taken to her matrimonial home as per the terms of the order granting such anticipatory bail, she was assaulted by the petitioner and also sustained injuries and also driven out from the matrimonial home. ….”, i.e. more cases continue

after deliberations, the court decides “…Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the order impugned. The application thus stands dismissed…..”, meaning husband’s quash petition for quashing the cancellation of bail fails and his bail stands cancelled and he has to do more running around !!!

Now all you tell me that we should have more judges or should get married more

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forwarded Judgement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8089 of 2013

Ashok Prasad @ Ashok Kumar Chandrabanshi, son of Nagina Ram,
resident of Vill. Kenarkala, P.S. Chenari, Distt. Rohtas. At present residing
at Vill. Raipur Chor, P.S. Shiv Sagar, Distt. Rohtas.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sangeeta Devi wife of Ashok Prasad
, resident of Vill. Nad, P.S. Shiv
Sagar, Distt. Rohtas….. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Sufiyan, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL ORDER

5 16-09-2013

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeks quashing of the order dated 30.10.2012 by which the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

The petitioner, being the husband of the complainant, was granted anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 231 of 2008 filed for offence punishable under Sections 498A/ 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which cognizance had been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has been granted bail in the said complaint case on 18.05.2009 and thereafter on an application filed by the complainant (opposite party no. 2) being Cr. Misc. No. 25 of 2012, by the impugned order, bail has been cancelled. Learned counsel submits that once bail had been granted, the same could not be cancelled only on the ground of violation of compromise as it is not provided under Chapter XXXIII of the Code which deals with grant and cancellation of bail. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee reported in 2004 (2) PLJR (SC) 201. Learned counsel submits that from the impugned order it is clear that the petitioner has been held to have violated the compromise and thus his bail was cancelled, which is impermissible in law.

Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the present case cannot be viewed as one in which a superior Court cancels bail granted by an inferior Court since the Court which had granted bail earlier, had cancelled the same taking into account the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. He submits that abuse of the concession granted to accused in any manner is a good ground for cancellation of bail. For such proposition, he relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349, the relevant being at paragraph-4. Learned counsel has further submitted that in an application for cancellation, the conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances are relevant. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 165 which has been followed in the case of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 21, the relevant being at paragraph-17.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submits that he also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram (supra) in which at paragraph-4 it has also been held that bail once granted should not been cancelled in a mechanical manner.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that present is a case where even though the language used by the Sessions Judge in the impugned order that because the petitioner had violated the terms of compromise the application for cancellation of bail was allowed, from the facts and circumstances it is apparent that even pursuant to petitioner having been granted anticipatory bail and after being taken to her matrimonial home as per the terms of the order granting such anticipatory bail, she was assaulted by the petitioner and also sustained injuries and also driven out from the matrimonial home. The Court had also considered the doctor’s certificate showing that she was treated for such injuries. It has also been discussed in the impugned order that the petitioner, after having obtained the order for anticipatory bail by making out a case that he was ever ready for compromise and would keep the complainant with full dignity and honour with him, was not only violated but in fact the same criminal acts which have been attributed initially, were again repeated by the petitioner towards the complainant. It is thus submitted that this Court can very well go into the overall merits and decide the question keeping in mind the fact that subsequent to the petitioner having been granted anticipatory bail, he had again committed the same offence which were initially alleged by the complainant. This, according to him, would not come in the way of this Court while deciding as to whether the impugned order, in which only at the end it is stated that because of violation of the terms and conditions of compromise the bail was cancelled, should not be tested in such a narrow compass without considering the overall discussions in the impugned order itself which clearly makes out a case of cancellation, especially on the ground of the petitioner having committed the same offence after the privilege of anticipatory bail was granted to him. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Considering the rival contentions, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

Their reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarmani Tripathi and Dolat Ram (supra) support their contentions and the grounds enumerated in the aforesaid decisions are relevant and apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case to sustain cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner on the ground of his conduct subsequent to have been released on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the order impugned. The application thus stands dismissed.

After the order having being passed, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence and prays that the Court may observe that any subsequent bail application filed by the petitioner may be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the past developments.

This Court has no hesitation in observing that as and when the petitioner files any application for grant of bail, the same may be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced by the fact that earlier the anticipatory bail granted to him stood cancelled. The Court shall also be free for incorporating safeguards which may facilitate amicable and lasting settlement between the parties.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anjani/-

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


Advertisements

One thought on “In Bihar, husband’s bail can be cancelled for “violation of compromise” !! Tell me we need MORE judges !

  1. Pingback: In Bihar, husband’s bail can be cancelled for “violation of compromise” !! Tell me we need MORE judges ! | Hari Om Jaimini

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s