Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24979 of 2010 ====================================================== Zeenat Praween W/o Md. Firoz, D/o Md. Alamgir, R/o village- Barh Samaila, P.S.- Keoti, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Md. Firoz S/o late Md. Zafir, 3. Mosarrat Praween D/o late Md. Zafir, 4. Md. Afroj, S/o late Md. Zafir 5. Raushan Khatoon, W/o late Md. Zafir 6. Md. Ali Raja S/o late Abdul Wahid 7. Sayeeda Khatoon, D/o late Md. Zafir, Opp. Party nos. 2 to 7 are R/o village- Barh Samaila, P.S. Keoti, District- Darbhanga .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ahtashan Ali Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A. Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 24-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has approached this Court under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 granted to them by an order dated 1.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 23/2006, registered under [STATUTE] and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24979 of 2010 (2) dt.24-07-2012 2/3 allegations as disclosed in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, based on a complaint petition filed by the petitioner, have not been properly considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, while granting bail to accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the bail granted to accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 by the impugned order dated 1.8.2006 is liable to be cancelled by this Court. After having heard the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 1.8.2006, it appears that the accused persons had taken a plea of divorce between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. There was some observations by the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in favour of accused persons while disposing of their anticipatory bail application filed earlier on their behalf. In that background, the bail was granted to the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 7 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. It further appears that almost six years have elapsed since the date of grant of bail to the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 by the impugned order dated 1.8.2006. There has been no allegation of misuse of privilege of bail by the accused-opposite parties. It is well settled that for the purpose of cancellation of bail the court should avoid to make re-appreciation or re-appraisal of the merit of the prosecution case. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24979 of 2010 (2) dt.24-07-2012 3/3 For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in granting bail to accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 7. No case for cancellation of bail has been made out. However, this does not end the matter. The criminal prosecution by the petitioner was started as far back as on 3.3.2006, when the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 was registered. More than six years have elapsed since then, and accused persons are on bail, but trial has not been concluded till date. Therefore, end of justice would sub serve, if the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is order accordingly. If the accused-opposite parties fail to attend the court on the dates fixed for the purpose of trial, then the order of cancellation of bail of accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 may be passed by the learned trial court in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all pleas including the question of restitution of matrimonial relationship during the course of trial. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application stands finally disposed of. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.