IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 999 of 2023

Laxmi Kumari Barnwal aged about 29 years, wife of Vikash Kumar, resident of Village Ghortambha, P.O.-

Ghortambha, P.S. Dhanwar, District- Giridih

...... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vikash Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Mahesh

Modi, resident of Village- Ghortambha, P.O.

Ghortambha, P.S.-Dhanwar, District- Giridih

.….. Opposite Parties

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari , Adv.

For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. PP

For the O.P. No. 2 : None

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties. No one turns up on behalf of the

opp. party no. 2 in spite of repeated calls, though notice has

validly been served upon opp. Party no. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) of the CrPC 1973 with the prayer for cancellation of bail granted the opp. Party no. 2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Giridih vide order dated 24.02.2023 in ABP no. 1945 of 2022 in connection with Dhanwar P.S. (Ghorthamba O.P.) case no. 195 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 307, 354, 498A,

34 of the IPC.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

investigation of the case is still going on and the charge sheet has

not yet been submitted.

4. The allegation made by the petitioner is that the Opp. Party no. 2

being the husband of the petitioner herein, after being granted

the privilege of anticipatory bail in the earlier complaint case no. 1384 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, / 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P.Act. in compliance of such anticipatory bail order, took the petitioner herein to his house to resume conjugal life but it is alleged that the Opp. Party no. 2 and his family members demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- and when the said demand was not fulfilled, the petitioner was assaulted and was not provided meal and she was treated inhumanly. It is also alleged that the brother of the Opp. Party no. 2 entered inside the room of the petitioner and used force but somehow, the petitioner could save her modesty and on being intimated by the petitioner, the Opp. Party no. 2 came back from his place of work at Delhi but the family members of the Opp. Party no. 2 told that the petitioner is a characterless lady and abused her family members and reiterated the demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- and when the petitioner protested against the same, on 21.07.2022 at about 8.30 PM, the Opp. Party no. 2 pressed a pillow on the face of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner became senseless and after regaining her sense, the petitioner rang her father to come to save her.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Giridih while granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considered that the parties have resumed their conjugal life on compromise and a complaint petition with respect to similar allegation of demand of dowry and torture after the marriage is still pending. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Giridih also considered that the petitioner was personnel of BSF and after leaving his service, he has joined the service in the Ministry of Defence as a Chinese Translator and by thus considering, gave the privilege of anticipatory bail to the O.P. No. 2 herein.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Victim ‘X’ vs. The State of Bihar and Another reported in 2025 INSC 877 and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ajwar vs. Waseem reported in (2024) 10 SCC 768 wherein in para 27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that the bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner but if a bail order is unreasoned or perverse, the same will be always open to be i