IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2025 of 2017 ------ Pintu Yadav @ Rahul Kumar, S/o Kartik Yadav, R/o Navadih, P.O. & P.S. Pirtand, District Giridih … … Petitioner -Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Fulkumari Devi, W/o Pintu Yadav, R/o Navadih, P.O. & P.S. Pirtand, District- Giridih ... … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Petitioner : M/s. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : M/s. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate ----- 08/27.02.2025 Heard the parties The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of order dated 01.07.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of ABP No. 23 of 2016 in Complaint Case No. 165 of 2015, registered under Section 498A, 354, 323, 379/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act, whereby and wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Giridih cancelled the Anticipatory Bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.04.2016 in ABP No. 23 of 2016. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the Opposite party No. 2. Opposite Party No.2 has filed a Complaint Case No. 165 of 2015 against the petitioner mainly under Section 498A of the I.P.C.The petitioner has preferred Anticipatory Bail Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. Learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner will appear before the Court alongwith the Complainant on 23.04.2016, so that their conduct could be watched. It appears that subsequently, opposite party no.2 complained that the petitioner was not maintaining her properly. On the basis of this allegation, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the Anticipatory Bail of the petitioner. 3. It is settled principal of law that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering the fact whether any supervening circumstances is no longer conducive for a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. Anticipatory Bail once granted can only be cancelled on the basis of settled grounds for cancellation of bail granted under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. The allegation that the petitioner was not maintaining the Opposite Party No.2 properly cannot be a ground for cancellation of his Anticipatory Bail. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, order dated 01.07.2017 cancelling the Anticipatory bail of the petitioner by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 is quashed. 5. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Nandini/- Uploaded