IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.1399 of 2021

------

Sakshi Goswami

...

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vikash Goshwami @ Vikash Kumar Goshwami

....

....

.... Opposite Parties

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Addl.P.P

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate

------

Order No.05 Dated- 15/07/2022

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects pointed out

by the stamp reporter are minor in nature. Hence, the same be ignored.

Considering the fact that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter

are minor in nature, the same are ignored for the present.

This criminal miscellaneous has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to

cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the order dated

06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 in connection with Complaint Case

No.2664 of 2017 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No.2 was

given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the trial court in terms of the order

dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 inter alia on the condition that

the opposite party No.2 will send the articles like clothes, one trunk, one trolley

bag, utensils and mixer to the petitioner through courier. It is next submitted that

the opposite party No.2 has violated the condition of bail by not returning articles

like clothes, one trunk, one trolley bag, utensils and mixer which belong to the

petitioner. It is then submitted that the opposite party No.2 very cleverly and in a

fraudulent manner only sent the blank trunk without any articles including

jewelry therein and as per the condition in the agreement between the parties, the

opposite party No.2 was duty bound to return the entire articles. It is then

submitted that another condition of bail was that the opposite party No.2 has to

pay Rs.15,00,000/- as full and final settlement but he has paid only Rs.5,00,000/-.

Hence, it is submitted that the opposite party No.2 is not complying with the terms

and conditions of the said order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of

2018. Hence, is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the

trial court in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018

be cancelled.

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned

counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer to cancel the

bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order

dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018. Learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine SC

123 paragraphs-4 & 5 of which read as under:-

“4. The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the

tenant from the premises of which the respondent is the owner. Previously, there

was a compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the

appellant will pay certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by

the time stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with

the terms of the compromise by not vacating the premises in question within the

time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail was filed. It is stated by

learned counsel for the appellant that neither was any averment made in the

petition about misuse of liberty granted to the appellant nor was any difficulty

alleged to have been faced by the prosecution in the case on the ground of the

appellant being at large