Ramashish Bind vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10178 of 2017
Arising Out of Complaint Case No. -1223 Year- 2012 Thana -BHABHU (KAIMUR) COMPLAIN
CASE District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR)

Ramashish Bind, son of Dina Bind, resident of Village- Masoee, P.O.- Amaon,
P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dhanauti Devi, wife of Ramashish Bind, Daughter of Ram Hari Bind, resident of
Village- Masoee, P.O.- Amaon, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) at
present residing at Village-Sahbajpur, P.O.- Moee, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur
(Bhabhua).

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 18-09-2017

This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Cr. Misc. No.17 of

2016 by which in exercise of power conferred under Section 439(2)

of the Cr. P.C., the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner in

connection with Complaint Case No.1223 of 2012, has been
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10178 of 2017 dt.18-09-2017
2

cancelled.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the court below has erroneously cancelled the

pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner without appreciating the fact

that he had not violated the undertaking given to the court. He

submitted that the court below failed to appreciate that it was the

opposite party no.2 herself, who was not willing to live with the

petitioner and had voluntarily left her matrimonial house.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

perused the record.

4. It would be evident from perusal of the impugned

order that the opposite party no.2 had filed complaint petition against

the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In the

said case, the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail vide order dated

26.06.2014 on the undertaking given by him that he would keep his

with dignity and honour. However, the complainant-opposite party

no.2 alleged that immediately after grant of bail, the petitioner again

started subjecting her to cruelty and, lastly, kicked her out from the

matrimonial house.

5. It would further be evident that on perusal of the

show cause filed by the petitioner the learned Sessions Judge come to

a definite conclusion that the allegations made by the complainant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10178 of 2017 dt.18-09-2017
3

were correct. Hence, by the impugned order dated 21st November,

2016, the privilege of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was

cancelled and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the

court below and seek regular bail.

6. As the order passed by the learned Session Judge

is reasoned one and the petitioner had obtained the privilege of

pre-arrest bail on false undertaking given to the court, I see no

illegality in order passed by the court below.

7. Accordingly, the application being devoid of any

merit, is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.09.2017
Transmission 20.09.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

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