SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 5753

PATNA HIGH COURT
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J
Gunja Kumari @ Gunja Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64632 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bablu Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

Bail cancellation necessitates clear evidence of misuse, such as obstructing investigations, which was not established, leading to dismissal.

Headnote:The present Cr. Miscellaneous Application seeks cancellation of bail for O.P. No.2, granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII. The petitioner argues that O.P. No.2’s refusal to resume cohabitation demonstrates misuse of bail. The opposing counsel contends there is no valid ground for cancellation and highlights personal obligations where the petitioner can seek remedies. The Court finds no substantial evidence of misuse, reaffirming that cancellation of bail requires clear demonstrations of abuse. The bail petition is dismissed.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

2 09-12-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present Cr. Misc. Application has been filed to cancel the bail of the O.P. No.2 which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Saran at Chapra vide order dated 03.03.2022 passed in B.P. No.380 of 2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail was granted to the O.P. No.2 considering the fact that he may keep the petitioner as wife but O.P. No.2 fails to concile with the petitioner and not ready to keep the petitioner with him. Accordingly, learned counsel prays to cancel the bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Saran at Chapra. He further submits that such continuous neglect and refusal to resume co-habitation explicitly shows that the O.P. No.2 is misusing the liberty awarded to him and is acting in a manner contrary to the spirit in which bail was granted earlier.

Therefore, the bail of O.P. No.2 shall be cancelled.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed and submitted that no ground is made out by the petitioner to cancel the bail of the O.P. No.2. He further submits that failure to take petitioner back to her matrimonial home falls within the realm of personal and civil obligations for which the petitioner has appropriate remedies under relevant laws.

5. Law is well-settled that cancellation of bail requires a demonstrable instance of misuse of liberty, such as tampering with the evidence, threatening witnesses, or obstructing the investigation, none of which has been substantiated in the present case. In absence of any cogent proof of such abuse, the settled principle of law mandates that the bail order ought not be interfered with.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for cancellation of bail of O.P. Nos.2 & 3 at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. petition stands dismissed.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top