—
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