JUDGMENT :

H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned senior counsels for the petitioner, for the Union of India, as also for the opposite party No.2.

2. This application has been filed with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2, by order dated 12.10.2019, passed in B.A. No.5667 of 2019.

3. The opposite party No.2, has been made accused and facing trial for the offences under Section 120-B, read with Sections 496, 376, 323, 298, 354-A, 506 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, in S.T No.554 of 2017 in the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, arising out of R.C Case No.9(S) of 2015, which arose out of Kotwali (Hindpiri) P.S Case No.742 of 2014, corresponding to G.R No. 4705 of 2014.

4. It is an admitted position that by the time, the opposite party No.2 was granted bail by order dated 12.10.2019, only eight witnesses could be examined in the trial, out of 29 witnesses named in the charge-sheet. Presently, in all nine witnesses have been examined as informed by the learned counsels for the parties, and delay in trial, is being caused due to the fact that in the meantime, the working of the Courts have been badly affected due to the worldwide pandemic.

5. There is allegation against the opposite party No.2 that he, being a Muslim by faith, falsely representing himself to be Hindu by faith, performed marriage with this petitioner, who is a Hindu by faith and a State level athlete, who came close with the opposite party No.2, during the practice of shooting in the Hotwar Shooting Range, Ranchi. It is alleged that the opposite party No.2 married this petitioner on 07.07.20014 according to Hindu rites, and after the marriage, the victim petitioner was coerced by the opposite party No.2 to perform the marriage in the Muslim manner also, and she was also asked to decry the Hindu religion and to adopt the Muslim religion, for which, she was subjected to cruelty and torture by various means, including physical assaults and sexual abuses. She had to be rescued from her matrimonial home with the help of the police.

6. Taking into consideration the allegations against the opposite party No.2, his bail applications were rejected seven times on merits by this Court. Ultimately, the opposite party No.2 filed B.A No. 5667 of 2019, in which, the opposite party No.2 prayed for granting bail on the ground that he was in custody since 28.8.2014, and he had served more than half of the sentence, even if he is convicted and sentenced to undergo the maximum sentences for the offences charged. The said bail application was pressed by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2 on that ground alone.

7. This Court, taking into consideration the period of custody of the opposite party No.2, allowed the bail application by order dated 12.10.2019, making it absolutely clear that the bail application was not being considered on merits, rather it was only on the basis of the period of custody undergone by the accused.

8. The plea of the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., that the opposite party No.2 is an influential person and he might influence the remaining witnesses during trial, was also duly taken care of by this Court, directing that the opposite party No.2 shall keep himself aloof from the remaining prosecution witnesses, yet to be examined, and if it is found that he had tried to influence the witnesses, in any manner whatsoever, the C.B.I. may move the Court below for cancellation of his bail, which shall be considered by the Trial Court itself, without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. In addition to that, the opposite party No.2 was also directed to deposit his passport in the Court below and was directed not to leave the Country without the permission of the Trial Court. It is this order, by which the present petitioner, who is the victim in the case, is aggrieved, and she has filed this application for cancellation of bail of the opposite party No.