SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santosh Kumar Das vs The State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48707 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2016 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui

SANTOSH KUMAR DAS S/o KANTHI LAL DAS R/o JANSIDIH, P.S-
SIKANDARA, DISTRICT – JAMUI.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. PRIYANKA KUMARI W/o SANTOSH KUMAR DAS, D/o BANKEY
DAS R/o MATIA, P.S. – LAXMIPUR, DISTRICT – JAMUI
… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-09-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The present quashing application has been filed for

setting aside the order dated 19.06.2021 in Cr. Revision No. 48 of

2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui whereby the

revision application filed against the order dated 09.02.2021

passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamui cancelling the bail bonds of

the petitioner and issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest

against him in Sikandara P.S. Case No. 141 of 2016 registered

under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been upheld.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48707 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023
2/6

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,

submits that the informant has completely misused the order dated

04.04.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 16616 of 2017 by which bail was

granted to the petitioner with a condition that petitioner shall not

indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

for proper adjudication of the case, it is necessary to state the facts

in some detail. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 herein filed

Sikandara P.S. Case No. 141 of 2016 against the petitioner under

Sections 498(A)/34 of the India Penal Code read with Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Act on 07.09.2016 (Annexure-

1 to the quashing application). Thereafter, the petitioner was taken

into custody on 19.02.2017, accordingly, the petitioner moved

before this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 16616 of 2017 and the

Court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner by order dated

04.04.2017 (Annexure-2 to the quashing application) with a

condition that petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till

conclusion of the trial apart from other conditions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that

opposite party no. 2 had filed Maintenance Case No. 128(M) of

2016 in which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month which was being directly deducted from his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48707 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023
3/6

salary account (Annexure-3 to the quashing application). It is

further submitted that a joint petition was filed in Maintenance

Case No. 128(M) of 2016 being Misc. Case No. 44 of 2017 by the

parties in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Jamui on 07.11.2019 (Annexure-4 to the quashing application) and

the parties agreed for one time settlement for an amount of

Rs.9,50,000/- for which D.D. No. 830033 was prepared. It is

submitted that thereafter the parties filed a joint compromise

petition on 14.11.2019 (Annexure-5 to the quashing application) in

the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jamui as they intended to settle

the issue based on one time settlement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

the D.D. was prepared, the monthly maintenance was stopped but

the informant became wise and resiled from the earlier settlement

and started demanding Rs.15,00,000/-. It is, thus, submitted that

since one time settlement failed, hence, maintenance was enhanced

and the maintenance was being paid regularly, but, on account of

some inadvertence, there was a break of three months in payment

of the maintenance, but the same was also later cleared. Learned

counsel further submits that the informant realizing that a joint

compromise petition has been filed and one time settlement has

been arrived at and the monthly maintenance has been enhanced
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48707 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023
4/6

after she resiled from the one time settlement, thought of taking

advantage of the order dated 04.04.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 16616 of

2017 and, thus, instituted Jamui Mahila P. S. Case No. 16 of 2020

dated 01.04.2020 under Sections 498A, 506/34 and 379 of the

Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that

from the facts stated hereinabove, it is manifestly clear that after

the petitioner was released on bail or rather after filing of

Sikandara P.S. Case No. 141 of 2016, the informant was not

staying with the petitioner. It is submitted that after the petitioner

was released on bail, he started giving monthly maintenance as

aforesaid, thus, the informant was willingly accepting the

maintenance amount as fixed in the maintenance case which

amply demonstrates that the informant was not staying with the

petitioner, but since the Court while granting bail to the petitioner

by order dated 04.04.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 16616 of 2017 had

imposed a condition, as such, the informant thought of taking

advantage of the same and instituted the aforesaid Mahila P.S.

Case. Learned counsel submits that mere filing of a case does not

amount to violation of the conditions of the order granting bail, the

matter had to be investigated for the truth to come out for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48707 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023
5/6

purposes of cancellation of bail otherwise it becomes easy for a

person to institute case after case in order to get the bail of the

petitioner cancelled on the ground that condition so imposed while

granting bail stands breached.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that

what has been done by the informant is nothing, but is a complete

abuse of the process of the Court by filing a case against the

petitioner only to deny him the privilege of bail when admittedly

based on the facts aforesaid, she was not staying with the

petitioner after institution of the aforesaid Sikandara P.S. case and

thus, it completely defies all logic, wisdom and reasonable human

behaviour that the petitioner, despite not staying together with the

informant would have meted out cruelty or torture.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

even the S.D.J.M., Jamui did not wait for the police report and

merely because a condition was imposed while granting bail which

was alleged to be breached, cancelled the bail bonds of the

petitioner in a mechanical manner and the said facts also escaped

the attention of the learned Sessions Judge.

10. Learned counsel for the informant appears and does

not object to the submissions being made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48707 of 2021 dt.04-09-2023
6/6

11. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner recorded hereinabove the order dated 19.06.2021 in

Cr. Revision No. 48 of 2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Jamui whereby the Revision Application filed against the order

dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamui cancelling

the bail bonds of the petitioner and issuance of non-bailable

warrant of arrest against him in Sikandara P. S. Case No. 141 of

2016 registered under Sections 498(A)/34 of the I.P.C. and

Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stands quashed.

12. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

AFR/NAFR N.A.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 06.09.2023
Transmission Date 06.09.2023

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation