IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1689 of 2024 ------ Kumari Puja, aged about 41 years, wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of Shiv Durga Mandir, Near Shubham Vatika, Ratu Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manoj Kumar son of Chandrika Prasad, resident of village- Banora Dahisot, P.O.-Kamre, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar (Pandra), District Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Saman Ahmad, Advocate : Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-08 Dated:-28-03-2025 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.7530 of 2021 passed by this Court in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P) P.S. Case No.61 of 2021. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party No.2 was given the privileges of anticipatory bail inter alia with the condition that he will keep and maintain the petitioner herein with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife after taking her on the date of his surrender in the Trial Court on 10.01.2022. The undisputed facts remains that the opposite party no.2 surrendered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and took the petitioner to his house and he was admitted to bail in terms of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.7530 of 2021. The undisputed facts also remains that the petitioner filed a case for maintenance in the Family Court, Ranchi which was pending before the Additional Family Court, Ranchi and during the pendency of the said case, the matter was referred for mediation wherein there was a settlement between the parties that they will separate and the opposite party no.2 undertook to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner as one time in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties, in 8 installments. The undisputed facts also remains that the opposite party no.2 has paid Rs.8,50,000/- out of the said Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is no written document but it was agreed upon between the parties that the opposite party no.2 will allow the petitioner and their two sons to occupy the portion of his paternal house; which contention of the petitioner is denied by the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 has not paid the rest amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of said Rs.10 lakhs because as per the agreement, the petitioner was to file an application jointly with the opposite party no.2 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent within 08 months from the date of the settlement i.e. on 30.11.2022 and that the petitioner will withdraw all the cases against the opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that the opposite party no.2 is still ready and willing to pay remaining Rs.1,50,000/- as and when the petitioner completes her part of obligation of withdrawing all the cases and filing a joint petition for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 by way of mutual consent, in the competent Court. Keeping in view the undisputed facts, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the grounds of cancellation of bail once granted to an accused; illustratively though not exhaustively are as under:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threaten witnesses or indulge in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of having done any of the acts, deeds or things which will warrant cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2. Admittedly, the settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2, in terms of the order dated 06.12.2021, in A.B.A. No.7530 of 2021 passed by this Court in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P) P.S. Case No.61 of 2021. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Abhiraj/