Jharkhand High Court
Soma Giri vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 18 July, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2493 of 2015
---
Soma Giri w/o Rajesh Giri, D/o Shri Gouranga Prasad Giri, at present
residing at Navin Colony, Dimna Bustee, Mango, PO - MGM,
(Mango), P.S. Ulidih, Town - Jamshedpur, District Singhbum East
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajesh Giri, son of Shri Bhabataran Giri, resident of village
Kesharda, PS & PO Bahragora, District Singhbhum East, at present
residing at C/o Ardhendu Giri, proprietor of Durga Jewellers, H. No.
134, Patpur, Bahragora, P. S. Bahragora, District Singhbhum East
... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P.
---
07/18.07.2017Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P., for the State.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the confirmation of provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been affirmed.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a case was instituted under Section 498A apart from the other sections of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no. 2 who is the husband of the petitioner. It has further been stated that certain terms and conditions were agreed upon on mediation and the opposite party no. 2 had undertaken to keep the petitioner with him. Learned counsel submits that in the initial stage the terms and conditions were fulfilled but subsequently thereafter the petitioner has been left at Kharagpur whereas the opposite party no. 2 is doing his job at Kolkata. Learned counsel submits that the situation having been deteriorated and since the provisional anticipatory bail application granted to the petitioner was confirmed on account of the compromise between the parties which is not in existence any more the orders which have been passed in relation to the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
-2-It appears that earlier the opposite party no. 2 had prayed for anticipatory bail and the petitioner was provisionally granted bail as steps were being taken for getting the matter compromised between the parties. Pursuant to the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 on certain terms and conditions the provisional anticipatory bail which was granted to the opposite party no. 2 was confirmed. However, the petitioner being aggrieved by the fact that the opposite party no. 2 was not adhering to the terms and conditions of the compromise had filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur praying therein for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2. Vide order dated 11.09.2015 the application of the petitioner was rejected.
It appears from perusal of the order dated 11.09.2015 that the parties have agreed for a compromise and since the petitioner did not have any major grievance against the opposite party no. 2 provisional anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 was confirmed. It further appears that the opposite party no. 2 had rented a house at Kharagpur for the petitioner which has been admitted by the petitioner. She has further admitted that the petitioner sometimes stays at Kharagpur and the rest of the time he stays at Kolkata where he is working as Medical Representative. The learned court below has also taken into consideration the fact that no complaint has been made by the petitioner before any authority whatsoever with respect to the alleged act of the opposite party no. 2.
Since the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not seem to hold ground and there being no reason to cancel the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner which has rightly been appreciated by the learned court below. I am not inclined to entertain this application and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-