IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13150 of 2007 1. MADAN YADAV son of Ghamandi Yadav. 2. Sanju Yadav, son of Mandan Yadav. 3. Preman Yadav, son of Ghamandi Yadav. 4. Shiva Yadav, son of Preman Yadav. 5. Basanti Yadav, son of Preman yadav. 6. Lachminia Devi, wife of Madan Yadav. 7. Sugia Devi, wife of Preman Yadav. 8. Maheshwari Devi, wife of Madheshwar Yadav. 9. Madheshwar Yadav, son of Ghamandi Yadav. 10. Laldeo yadav, son of Ghamandi Yadav. All residents of village-Gobardhanpur(Tetaria),Police-Station- Amas, District- Gaya. 11. Dhani Yadav, son of mahajar Yadav, resident of village- Hussainganj, P.s.Bankey Bazar, District-Gaya. ……………….. Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Saroj Devi, daughter of Ram Bilash Yadav, resident of village-Kendu, P.O.-Shyam Nagar Nima, P.S. Gurua, District-Gaya. …………….. opposite parties. --------- 8 27.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and learned A.P.P for the State. Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 11.1.2007 passed in Criminal Misc.28/05 by learned Sessions Judge, Gaya. By virtue of this order learned Sessions Judge has observed that as there is failure on the part of the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month to the informant (wife), therefore, his earlier order dated 11.3.2003 granting anticipatory bail stands violated and their bail is likely to be cancelled, if the said order is not 2 complied within 20 days of its passing. This Court does not want to express its opinion in the way and the manner the initially provisional bail has been granted to these petitioners, extended from time to time till the final order came to be passed on 11.3.2003. Vide the said order the said order all the petitioners were made liable for non-payment of Rs. 800/- P.M. by the husband of the informant (wife). The order in question was passed, the provisional anticipatory bail granted earlier was confirmed and thus order remained as such and was quietly accepted by all the petitioners. Subsequently it seems that the lady-informant in question filed a petition stating that these petitioners have not complied with the earlier direction and the Rs. 800/- per month is not being paid by the petitioners, keeping the above in mind, the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel submits that it is reflected from the order itself that the informant(wife) and her husband entered into a compromise and started living together that was the background under which the said amount of Rs. 800/- per month was not being paid. For 3 the above their bail application is threatened to be cancelled for violation of the earlier order dated 11.3.2003. It is an unreasonable kind of condition which has been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and it defies all logic as to why such a ground was imposed while granting the bail. Since the conduct of the petitioners is not the reason for cancellation of the bail but is dependent on the conduct of yet another accused it will be evidently unreasonable to allow cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have made out a case for interference with the impugned order dated 11.1.2007. It stands quashed. Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed. Bibhash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)