Patna High Court
VIJAY SHREEversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The anticipatory bail granted to the husband is not cancelled.
Summary
Vijay Shree, the wife, filed an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to her husband, Gajendra Singh, in a criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the bail was granted without sufficient notice to her and that subsequent threatening conduct by the husband warranted cancellation. The High Court observed that the bail order was passed after hearing both parties and after considering the husband's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, indicating that due process was followed. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the bail order on the basis of notice. While the application for cancellation was dismissed, the Court permitted the petitioner to raise any further concerns about supervening threats before the court that originally granted the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail granted to the husband can be cancelled on the ground of insufficient notice to the petitioner
- Whether supervening threatening conduct by the husband justifies cancellation of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cancellation of bail
- Section 498A
- domestic violence
- Hindu Marriage Act
- notice
- threatening conduct
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29395 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2021 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
VIJAY SHREE D/o Manoj Kumar Singh, W/o Gajendra Singh R/o village-
Saneya, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur, At present Krishna Nagar, Bhelai
Road, Zero Mile, P.S.- Udvantnagar, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gajendra Singh S/o Dev Kumar Singh R/o village- Chhotaki Haradiyan,
P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surj Bansh Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 by order dated 22.04.2022 by the Court of the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in A.B.P. No. 53 of
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present case is one under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and the opposite party no. 2, who was the petitioner in the bail
application, was the husband. The ground taken for cancellation
him is that without hearing the petitioner and giving sufficient
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29395 of 2022(3) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
notices, the opposite party no.2 has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail and the other ground taken by him relates to
the supervening circumstances of threatening of dire
consequences being given to the petitioner by the opposite party
no. 2.
4. So far as the first ground of insufficient notices is
concerned, it is apparent from the bare perusal of the order
granting anticipatory bail that the counsels for the husband
(opposite party no.2), wife (petitioner) and the State were all
given due hearing and in the last paragraph of the order it has
been clearly stated that after hearing both the parties and upon
consideration of the records including the application under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act also having been filed on
behalf of the opposite party no.2 (husband) that the privilege of
anticipatory bail had been granted. As such, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the well considered order, considering
the law which has been settled with regard to parameters for
grant of bail stands on completely different level from that of
cancellation thereof. In such view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to cancel the bail already granted to the opposite party
no. 2, as such, the present application for cancellation of bail is
dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29395 of 2022(3) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
5. However, with regard to supervening circumstances
of threatening, the petitioner is granted liberty to raise the issues
before the Court concerned which has granted bail to the
opposite party no.2 and the concerned Court would dispose of,
any such application filed by the petitioner, in accordance with
law.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…