Patna High Court
MONA KUMARIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The anticipatory bail order is not perverse and there are no cogent grounds to cancel it; the application for cancellation is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Mona Kumari, sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party, Amlesh Kumar, alleging that the bail was obtained on a false premise of a live-in relationship and a forged compromise document. The petitioner also claimed that the opposite party was physically disabled and that the bail order was perverse. The High Court examined the bail order, noting that it merely recorded a dispute over the nature of the relationship and did not adjudicate the legality of the marriage. The Court held that the alleged forgery and subsequent complaint did not constitute sufficient grounds to cancel the bail, as the bail order was not perverse and the principles for cancelling bail require overwhelming circumstances. Consequently, the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the bail order does not affect any other proceedings between the parties.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party should be cancelled on the ground of a perverse order.
- Whether the alleged forged compromise document and claim of a live-in relationship justify cancellation of bail.
- Whether the disability of the opposite party influences the bail decision.
- Whether the filing of a separate forgery complaint impacts the validity of the anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cancellation of bail
- perverse order
- forgery
- marriage dispute
- disability
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58431 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1970 Year-2018 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
MONA KUMARI Wife of Sri Amlesh Kumar D/o Late Birendra Chaudhary,
R/m- Dujra, P.S.- Budha Colony, Distt.- Patna (Tenant in the house of Sri
Bhagwan Singh).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Amlesh Kumar Son of Sri Madan Singh R/v- Bhagwatiya Rajpur, P.S.-
Keshariya, Purvi Champaran, Distt.- Motihari at present Poluya Paigambar
Bairiya near at Azad Transport, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
For O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Gulafshan Afrin, Advocate
Mr. S. Khalid Shah, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
O.P. No. 2 and learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Opposite Party
No. 2, vide order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Patna.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the present order of granting bail to the Opposite Party No.
2 suffers from the ground of perversity as even though, the
petitioner had appeared and contested the argument of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58431 of 2022(4) dt.03-04-2026
2/4
Opposite Party No. 2 that the relationship between the parties
was not one of a live-in-relationship but of duly performed
marriage, anticipatory bail was granted. It was also pointed out
that the mutual compromise between the parties by way of a
bond paper (Annexure-3 to the application) was a fake and
forged document inasmuch as the signature of the
petitioner/complainant and her mother have been denied and the
same is said to be forged. It has thus, been submitted that the
anticipatory bail granted to the O.P. No. 2 on such false ground
of a live-in-relationship and of compromise having arrived at
between the parties, is fit to be cancelled.
4. Learned counsel has also brought on record by way
of supplementary affidavit, a complaint case filed against the
Opposite Party No. 2 with regard to the alleged fraud committed
with the Court whereupon subsequently, cognizance has also
been taken.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
cancellation of anticipatory bail of the Opposite Party No. 2.
6. After having gone through the contentions of the
petitioner and the other documents on record, it appears that the
order dated 06.04.2022 clearly indicates in the last but one
paragraph that there appears to be a dispute of marriage and it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58431 of 2022(4) dt.03-04-2026
3/4
only refers to a claim that there was a live-in-relationship
between the petitioner Amlesh Kumar, who is the present
Opposite Party No. 2, and the complainant, who is the present
petitioner. It is clear from such words that there is a claim and
counter claim which in no way decides the legality or illegality
of the marriage, nor the impugned order indicates the same.
7. So far as the compromise in the form of bond paper
is concerned, from the bare perusal of same, it appears that the
signature of the present petitioner/complainant and her mother
appears on the said documents and the Court of learned Sessions
Judge would not have been in a position to decide as to whether
the same was forged or not. However, the order granting bail
has not only considered the factum of compromise but has
mainly considered that there was a dispute with regard to the
marriage and had also considered that Opposite Party No. 2 was
physically disabled person, showing 90 per cent of disability.
8. In any view of the matter, the petitioner/informant
has the unfettered right to pursue the subsequent complaint case
filed by him against Opposite Party No. 2 relating to forgery
which would reach its own logical conclusion. But the filing of
the said complaint petition and taking cognizance thereupon, is
a subsequent development, which was not present before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58431 of 2022(4) dt.03-04-2026
4/4
Court while granting anticipatory bail. Moreover, taking of
cognizance only establishes a prima facie case and is not
conclusive proof of fact.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances and having
heard the rival submissions of the parties, it cannot be said that
the view taken by the learned Court concerned was a perverse
view. Thus, keeping in view the principles and guidelines with
respect to cancellation of bail as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in catena of decisions that very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for interfering with the discretion in
granting bail, I do not see any good ground to set aside the order
of the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, as such, the present
application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that the order granting
anticipatory bail to the Opposite Party No. 2 would not have any
implication on any other proceeding between the parties.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…