Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19290 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Indu Devi W/O Vikash Kumar R/O Mohalla - Shivganj, P.O. And P.S. Arrah, District - Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Vikash Kumar S/O Krishna Murari Sah R/O Village-Balihar (Suryapura), P.S. Suryapura, District - Rohtas .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 26-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. The present application has been filed under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 by order dated 29.3.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No.12903 of 2012 by this court. It is contended that the bail was granted by this court on the basis of wrong submissions made on behalf of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the petitioner was earlier married to one Sanjay Sah. However, subsequently in Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No.14 of 2008 a decree of divorce was granted in her favour by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara by order dated 5.2.2008. While arguing the bail on behalf of opposite party no.2, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19290 of 2012 (4) dt.26-09-2012 2 2 a plea was taken that the petitioner was not divorced by Sanjay Sah and in that situation there was no question of her entering into any valid marriage with the opposite party no.2. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite no.2 submits that the aforesaid submission was not deliberately made. As a matter of fact, opposite party no.2 at that time was not aware of the divorce decree granted in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that prior to the institution of the present complaint the petitioner had instituted a complaint under [STATUTE] against said Sanjay Sah. While deposing as a witness in that case in paragraph-2 the petitioner had stated that she has already got a decree of divorce against Sanjay Sah in Case No.43 of 2007. A copy of the deposition of the petitioner made in Complaint Case No.1650-C of 2005 on 21.5.2008 has been brought on record and marked as annexure-1 to the show cause. Learned senior counsel submits that opposite party no.2 had made an enquiry in this regard and came to know that Matrimonial Case No.43 of 2007 was filed by one Smt. Rekha Singh. The said case was dismissed for default. He, thus, submits that, as a matter of fact, the opposite party no.2 got misled due to some inadvertence caused by the petitioner while deposing in court. The mistake, if Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19290 of 2012 (4) dt.26-09-2012 3 3 any, was bona fide. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of allegation, I find no reason to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no.2. The case has been instituted under [STATUTE] and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. There is no allegation that the opposite party no.2 in any manner has misused the privilege of bail after grant of bail. The prayer for bail was allowed, taking into account various other facts of the case. In that view of the matter, the present application is dismissed. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, 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.