--1-- Cr.M.P. No. 58 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 58 of 2025 ---- Soni Devi, aged about 25 years, wife of Mukesh Prasad Kushwaha, D/o – Jitendra Narayan Choudhari, resident of New Colony Gopalichak, Near Shiv Mandir, Post – Kusunda, Police Station – Putki, District – Dhanbad .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Prasad Kushwaha, son of Nanhu Mahto, resident of village – Peto, Post – Harli Daru, PS – Daru, District – Hazaribagh, State - Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 :- Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate ---- 05/21.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by order dated 25.04.2024 passed in A.B.A. No.1586 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail was granted in view of the fact that both the parties were ready to reside together and pursuant to that the petitioner was taken to the house of the opposite party No.2, however, she is not being treated in the dignified way. On this ground, he submits that the anticipatory bail order of opposite party No.2 may kindly be cancelled. --2-- Cr.M.P. No. 58 of 2025 4. From the records, it transpires that there is nothing to suggest that further any untoward action has been taken by the opposite party No.2. It has been argued vehemently that the CCTV camera has been installed in the premises and she has been kept in one room but complaint to that effect has not been made to any police station and nothing on the record even the footage of the camera is not annexed in the petition. 5. It is well settled that in a casual way once the bail is granted that can’t be cancelled unless a cogent reason is disclosed. The case is arising out of the matrimonial dispute under 498A and other Sections of the IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and there is no material on the record to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted to the opposite party No.2. Thus, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/