Deepak Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 31 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45470 of 2016
Arising Out of Complaint Case No. 47 of 2015 pending in the court of ACJM-7 Kaimur at Bhabhua

Deepak Kumar Singh son of Late Dharmdeo Singh, resident of village-
Janardanpur, P.S.-Dugawaati, District- Kaimur at Bhabua
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1.State of Bihar

2. Nitu Devi wife of Deepak Kumar Singh, daughter of Brij Bihari Singh, resident
of village- Janardanpur, P.S.-Dugawaati, District- Kaimur at Bhabua, at present
residing at village- Dihra, P.S.-Shivsagar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dinesh Singh, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 31-08-2017

The petitioner has been made accused in a case under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. He had filed an application for grant of pre-

arrest bail before the Court of Session Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua, vide

ABP No.63 of 2016. In the said ABP No.63 of 2016, the petitioner

gave an undertaking that he would keep his wife with dignity and

honour and, on the basis of such undertaking, his application for grant

of pre-arrest bail was allowed, vide order dated 23.01.2016. After

grant of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has not complied with the

undertaking given before the court and has deserted his wife. Thus,

the complainant filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45470 of 2016 dt.31-08-2017

2/4

of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the CrPC’) in the Court of Session

Judge for cancellation of bail granted to him. After hearing the parties,

the learned Session Judge, vide order dated 18.08.2016 allowed the

prayer of the complainant and cancelled the bail granted to the

petitioner earlier. The operative part of the order passed by the learned

Session Judge reads as under:

“I find that it is a fact that even after repeated
adjournments the husband/O.P. No. 2 is not
appearing before the court during pendency of
this criminal Miscellaneous petition though, the
notice was received by him and he has also
engaged learned counsel on his behalf by filing
power to appear in the case but even concerned
lawyer did not appear today neither the
husband. Wife is present and according to her
after grant of bail her husband never turned up
to take her back. I find that Deepak Kr. Singh
one of the accused of Complaint Case No. 47 of
2015 was granted anticipatory bail considering
their intention to take his wife back to
matrimonial home in view of undertaking filed
by him. Rest other accused were granted
anticipatory bail as allegations against them are
general and omnibus so there is distinction in the
case of the husband and rest other accused.

Deepak Kr. Singh/ O.P. No.2, the husband of the
petitioner has not followed the undertaking filed
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45470 of 2016 dt.31-08-2017

3/4

by him on the basis of which he was granted
anticipatory bail and his defiant attitude not to
appear before this court personally despite
directions and grant of several adjournments
shows his intention not to take back his wife so,
anticipatory bail granted to him by order dated
23.01.2016 in A B P No.63 of 2016 is only hereby
cancelled.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

learned Session Judge has cancelled the bail of the petitioner on

erroneous ground. He has submitted that it is not a fact that the

petitioner has deserted his wife. He has contended that the fact of the

matter is that the complainant herself is not ready to live in

matrimonial house.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant-

opposite party no.2 has submitted that a completely false statement

has been made by the petitioner before this Court. He has submitted

that after obtaining the order of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner neither

approached her nor ever tried to take her back to the matrimonial

house. He has contended that the petitioner’s defiant approach has

also been noted by the court below while passing the impugned order

dated 18.08.2016.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45470 of 2016 dt.31-08-2017

4/4

the record.

5. I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for

the informant.

6. Admittedly, the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail was

allowed by the court below on the undertaking of the petitioner that he

would keep his wife in the matrimonial home with dignity and

honour. After obtaining the order of bail, he failed to comply with the

undertaking given before the court.

7. In that view of the matter, no error can be found in the

order passed by the learned Session Judge. Accordingly, the

application being meritless, is dismissed.

8. The petitioner may surrender and seek bail, which shall

be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced in any

manner either by the order passed by this Court or the order passed by

the learned Session Judge whereby the application filed by the

complainant under Section 439(2) of the CrPC has been allowed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Md.S./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.09.2017
Transmission 05.09.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *