[2026:JHHC:1178] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1571 of 2023 ------ Mamta Ghosh, Female, Aged 25 years, w/o Shri Bikash Gosh @ Shri Vikash Gosh, d/o Shri Ashok Gosh, r/o- Mohalla Chuna Bhatta, Road no. 17, Near Railway Under Ground Bridge, Adityapur-1, Adityapur, P.O.+P.S.- Adityapur, Dist. Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand PIN 831013 Adhar no. 5854 6639 4594 … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vikash Ghosh @ Bikash Ghosh s/o Late Balram Ghosh, Resident of c/o Vijay Singh, Vidya Nagar, Road no. 3, P.O.- Harmu, P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. Jharkhand, PIN 834001 Working at Department of Information and public relation, Suchana Bhawawn, Kanke Road, Ranchi, PIN 834001 … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate ------ Order No:-11 Dated:-16-01-2026 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 7073 of 2019 in connection with Complaint Case No. 155 of 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court granted the privileges of anticipatory bail to the opposite party No.2 under the impression that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 has been dissolved by a Decree of Divorce passed by the Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 921 of 2017. It is next submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 was dissolved by ex-parte order and decree and the petitioner after coming to know about the same, filed Misc. Case No. 117 of 2019 which was allowed vide the order dated 16.02.2023. Hence, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the opposite party No.2 was given the privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 7073 of 2019 and on 22.10.2019, the undisputed fact remained that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 stood dissolved by the Decree of Divorce passed by the Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 921 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the complainant without prejudice to his defence which has already been paid. It is also submitted that there is no fraudulent action on the part of the opposite party No.2 nor is there any allegation against the opposite party No.2 of causing any hindrance in smooth trial of the case but the petitioner is deliberately delaying the disposal of the case and has not even examined herself till today. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 was dissolved by a Decree of Divorce passed ex-parte on 11.04.2019 by the Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 921 of 2017. Of course, in exercise of power under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Family Court, Patna has set aside the ex-parte decree vide the order dated 16.02.2023. The opposite party No.2 was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court on 22.10.2019. The undisputed fact remains that on that day, there was no subsisting marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 could not have any knowledge about the future that at some point of time, the ex-parte Decree of Dissolution of the Marriage will be set aside. There is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 of indulging in similar criminal activity, interfering with the course of investigation, attempting to tamper with evidence or witnesses, threatening witnesses or indulging in similar activities which would hamper smooth trial of the case; which are the grounds of cancellation of bail. Further, there is no likelihood of the opposite party No.2 fleeing to another country nor there is any allegation against the opposite party No.2 of attempting to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the surety. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 7073 of 2019 in connection with Complaint Case No. 155 of 2019 is to be cancelled. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 16.01.2026 Saroj/