AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J
This application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to opposite party No.2 by order dated 02.12.2014 passed in Bail Application No.486 of 2014 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sundargarh.
The petitioner is the wife of opposite party No.2. She has lodged the F.I.R. leading to registration of Sundargarh Town P.S. Case No.170 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
The opposite party No.2 had filed BLAPL No.486 of 2014 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and same has been allowed vide order dated 02.12.2014 directing that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the condition that :
(a) He shall appear before the I.O. once in every month till submission of the charge sheet
(b) While on bail, he shall not terrorize, threaten, coerce or exercise any manner of unwarranted undue influence on the informant and/or of her paternal family members and/or any of her witnesses in the aforementioned G.R. Case and
(c) He shall not leave the territory of India without leave of the Court and if he leave Bilashpur, he shall submit to this Court the place of his destination and his address and his date of return.
(d) That on submission of charge sheet he shall on receipt of notice forthwith appear before the Court and apply for regular bail, which shall be dealt with by the concerned court as per law without being influenced to this order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the opposite party No.2 had been released on bail on 31.12.2014, he terrorized the petitioner and her family members during his visit to Sundergarh and taking advantage of the order had tried several means to defame and discourage the petitioner in the society by taking help of different social sites available in the internet which were otherwise influencing the petitioner and her family members as well as the witnesses who were afraid to move further in the prosecution case.
Notice in this bail application has been issued to opposite party No.2 by order dated 17.03.2015. Registry has pointed out that notice has returned undelivered with a report “Addressee left without instruction”. Thereafter the matter has not been listed.
Considering the fact that almost eight years have elapsed since the impugned order has been passed and till date notice of the application could not be severed on opposite party No.2, I am not inclined to allow this CRLMA and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
……………………………