Rajesh Kumar Gope vs State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar, J.—1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.04.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 15 of 2014, whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 03.7.2013, passed in B.P. No. 90 of 2013, in Complaint Case No. 3475 of 2009. It appears that petitioner has been arraigned in Complaint Case No. 3475 of 2009 on the allegation that he used to torture his wife namely, Mithu Bala Gope. It further appears that petitioner has been arrested in that case and he filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide B.P. No. 790 of 2013. It further appears that the learned Sessions Court referred the case for mediation before the Mediation Centre, Jamshedpur. Before the Mediator, both the parties appeared and they have settled their dispute as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the written agreement. It further appears that on the basis of the aforesaid agreement and/or settlement between the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide order dated 03.7.2013, passed in B.P. No. 790 of 2013 granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the condition that if petitioner will violate the terms and conditions mentioned in the written agreement, then the informant (Mithu Bala Gope) will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in accordance with law.

It is alleged that in terms of the aforesaid order, petitioner was granted bail and after 20 days of release, he went to his in-laws house and brought his wife (Mithu Bala Gope) to his house. It is further alleged that thereafter he started torturing and assaulting his wife and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the agreement on the basis of which he was released on bail. Thereafter, complainant namely, Mithu Bala Gope filed a Miscellaneous Petition in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 15 of 2014, which was allowed vide order dated 10.4.2015 and the bail granted to petitioner has been cancelled. Against that, the present writ application filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without making any enquiry. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 has not proved the allegations made in the Miscellaneous Petition by adducing evidence, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

On the other hand, Sri Pran Pranay, JC to S.C.-II submits that from perusal of L.C. Record, it appears that petitioner has not filed any show cause and/or reply to the Miscellaneous Petition filed by respondent No. 3. Under the said circumstance, petitioner has admitted the allegations made in the Miscellaneous Petition. In that view of the matter, no enquiry is required to be carried out. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the L.C. Record. From perusal of L.C. Record, I find that after receiving notice, petitioner appeared in the court below. It further appears that on 12.8.2014 and 28.8.2014, petitioner filed applications for filing show cause, but in spite of that he did not file any show cause. Thus, it appears that petitioner has not denied the allegations made in the Miscellaneous Petition filed by respondent No. 3, Mithu Bala Gope. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, no enquiry is required, because the allegations are admitted by the petitioner.

From perusal of terms and conditions of the agreement which has been incorporated at para-7 of the impugned order, it is clear that petitioner had given an undertaking that he will not torture either physically or mentally to respondent No. 3 and will also not demand anything either cash or kind from her at any point of time in future. It is alleged in the Miscellaneous Petition that petitioner assaulted her mercilessly on 6.1.2014, thus, it is clear that petitioner has violated the aforesaid terms and conditions of the bail. In that view of the matter, I find that learned court below has rightly cancelled the bail granted to petitioner vide order dated 03.7.2013 in B.P. No. 90 of 2013. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application, accordingly, the same is dismissed.