2025:JHHC:12388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3463 of 2024 1. Julekha Khatoon, aged about 58 years, Wife of Late Naimul Haque, Resident of Village – Katamkulli, P.O. & P.S. – Pithoria, District – Ranchi. 2. Faruque Ansari, aged about 35 years Son of Late Naimul Ansari, Resident of Village – Chandwe, P.O.- Chandwe, P.S. – Pithoria, District: Ranchi. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Roshan Ara, aged about 33 years, daughter of Md. Akhtar, resident of Katankuli, P.O. and P.S. – Pithoria, District-Ranchi. … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Adv. Order No.05/Dated- 25.04.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No.1200 of 2016 whereby during pendency of the criminal revision, the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated 11.06.2024. It is submitted that the ground for recalling the impugned order is mentioned at paras 5 and 6 of the petition wherein it is disclosed that on the date of hearing of Cr. Revision No.1200 of 2016, i.e., 11.06.2024 due to non-presence of counsel for the petitioners, their bail, earlier granted in the revision, was cancelled and direction was given to issue N.B.W. against the convicted. There is no willful fault on the part of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners were held guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code wherein petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law of the victim. 2025:JHHC:12388 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and the husband of the victim is till absconding. This criminal revision is pending since 2016 but the petitioners were not taking any interest in prosecuting the criminal revision for hearing and lingering the case one way or the other, therefore, impugned order was passed cancelling their bail bonds. Still the petitioners have not surrendered before the concerned Trial Court or insisted for hearing of the criminal revision on merits. Therefore, the reason pointed out by the petitioners is not sufficient and convinced. Therefore, Cr.M.P. is fit to be dismissed. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also on perusal of record, it appears that the impugned order was passed due to not taking any effective steps since several dates within the knowledge of the petitioners. The mere one day default of the learned counsel was not sole reason for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. Therefore, I do not feel inclined to recall or cancel the earlier order dated 11.06.2024 passed by this Court and this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin