IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be cancelled solely for failing to comply with mediation terms; substantial evidence is required for cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.

1. The instant revision application has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih, in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 69 of 2021, arising out of the Mahila P.S. Case No. 14/2020, whereby the Cr. Misc. Petition No. 69 of 2021 for cancellation of bail of O.P. No. 2 has been dismissed.

2. The case record transpires that petitioner-wife lodged FIR being Giridih (Mahila) P.S. Case no. 14/2020 registered under Section 498 A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against her husband/O.P. No. 2 and in-laws alleging therein that petitioner got married with O.P. No. 2 as per Islamic custom on 15.02.2015 and one daughter born out of this wedlock. For about 2 years of marriage, everything was fine and petitioner-wife was kept in a rented accommodation but thereafter, O.P. No. 2-husband stopped paying rent and expenses to petitioner-wife, which prompted her to go her matrimonial home but she was kicked out from the matrimonial home on 25.09.2020 by O.P. No. 2-husband and her in-laws and they demanded Rs.1,00,000/- cash and Hero Honda Motorcycle.

3. During course of investigation, the O.P. No. 2-husband got apprehended and was in judicial custody thereafter when O.P. No. 2-husband filed an application for grant of bail, then at the behest of petitioner-wife, the matter was sent for mediation and matter got amicably settled between the parties and O.P. No. 2-husband was granted regular bail by Additional Sessions Court vide order dated 06.03.2021.

Thereafter, this petitioner-wife and her daughter was brought back by O.P. No. 2-husband and they peacefully resided for some time. But again O.P. No. 2-husband started inflicting cruelty upon petitioner-wife which resulted into separation between them.

4. It is alleged that during that period petitioner-wife was forced by O.P. No. 2-husband to withdraw the case and also extended threat that if any witness come forward for giving evidence, then those persons would be implicated in a false case.

In view of above said alleged development, petitioner-wife filed cancellation of bail of O.P. No. 2-husband, however, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih rejected the same vide order dated 20.12.2021, against which the present revision.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that O.P. No. 2-husband has not sticked to his words which was made during mediation and it is also incorporated in the mediation agreement which also bore the signature of both the sides. It has also been pointed out that even O.P. No. 2-husband has not kept the petitioner-wife and her daughter with dignity rather she was forced to withdraw the case and threats were also extended to her. On the aforesaid premise, prayer for cancellation of bail of O.P. No. 2-husband has been made before Additional Sessions Court but the same was erroneously declined.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2-husband and learned Spl. P.P for the State submitted that it is the petitioner-wife, who was/is not interested to live with the O.P. No. 2-husband under the same roof, rather O.P. No. 2-husband is still ready and willing to keep her. As far as allegation of withdrawal of case by the petitioner-wife is concerned, it has been submitted that it is concocted and false story developed on behalf of petitioner-wife only for the purpose with oblique motive to harass O.P. No. 2-husband.

7. Heard at length both the sides and perused the record. This Court has carefully gone through the mediation report and bail order dated 06.03.2021 by which O.P. No. 2-husband has been admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih. After going through the mediation report, it appears that petitioner-wife as well as O.P. No. 2-husband has undertaken to take care and respect each other. It is alleged by the petitioner-wife that O.P. No. 2-husband had not taken care of her and compelled her to withdraw the case, as such, husband v