( 2026:JHHC:10511 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.417 of 2025 ------ Sagufta Naaz @ Sagufta, aged about 30 years, W/o Md. Tanbir Raza @ Tanvir Raza, R/o-Tiwari Tank Road, Hindpiri, Near Nawab Store, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Hindpiri, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Tanbir Raza @ Tanvir Raza, S/o Md. Murtaza R/o Millat Colony, Saira Manjil, P.O. + P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate ------ Order No:-07 Dated:-10-04-2026 Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.7861 of 2023 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2515 of 2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 was given the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.10.2023 in A.B.A. No.7861 of 2023 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2515 of 2022 on the condition that he will resume conjugal life with the petitioner as and when the petitioner joins him for resuming the conjugal life and keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife. 4. The undisputed facts remains that the opposite party no.2 herein is the accused of the Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 who filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail which was numbered as A.B.A. No.7861 of 2023. 5. The undisputed facts remains that the petitioner during the hearing of that anticipatory bail application on 10.10.2023 inter alia voluntarily undertook to keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife, as and when she resumes conjugal life with him and upon such undertaking, this Court granted pre-arrest bail to the opposite party no.2 inter alia with the condition that the opposite party no.2 will keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife as and when she resumes conjugal life with him. Consequent upon grant of anticipatory bail, the opposite party no.2 herein furnished bail bond before the trial court on 19.10.2023 and along with bail bond, the opposite party no.2 herein also furnished an undertaking that he will keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife as and when she resumes conjugal life with him (myself) and this undertaking has been written in his own handwriting by the opposite party no.2 in the trial court and after that he has been admitted to bail. 6. 6. It is also the undisputed fact that the petitioner expressed her desire to resume conjugal life with the opposite party no.2 during the pendency of the said Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2515 of 2022, but the opposite party no.2 refused to abide by the condition of the bail bond, the undertaking in respect of which he has written in his own handwriting at the time of furnishing bail bond for being released on bail; that he will resume conjugal life with the petitioner, as and when she is willing for the same. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the opposite party no.2 has violated the condition of his bail bond which he has undertaken in his own handwriting before the trial Court, and only basing upon which the opposite party no.2 has been released on bail, in terms of the order dated 10.10.2023 in A.B.A. No.7861 of 2023 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2515 of 2022, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 be cancelled. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 29.07.2025 in SLP(Crl.) No.4862 of 2025 submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider another order passed by this Court in connection with Ranchi Mahila P.S. Case No.11 of 2024 and in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case for pre-arrest bail, entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition which is not traceable to Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. and set aside the anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the appellant of that case in A.B.A. No.4200 of 2024 and requested this Court to decide A.B.A. No.4200 of 2024 afresh on its own merit, hence, it is submitted that as such condition was not appreciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, for violation of the such condition of bail, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2, be not cancelled. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Manish Koomar @ Manish Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2026:JHHC:2702 wherein this Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 dated 01.04.2022 enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (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. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in (2022) 15 SCC 211 wherein in para-25 where such conditions have been illustratively though not exhaustively mentioned. It is lastly submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not committed any acts or omission mentioned in the said grounds, hence, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 ought not be cancelled. 9. Learned Spl.P.P appearing for the State also supported the contention of the opposite party no.2 and submits that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222, that the bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:- (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that this Court imposed a condition inter alia upon the opposite party no.2 while granting the pre-arrest bail to the opposite party no.2 herein himself voluntarily undertaking before this Court that he will keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife as and when she resumes conjugal life with him. 12. Unlike in the case of Anil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), the said order of the Court was never challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the undisputed fact remains that the said anticipatory bail application has attained finality, having not been challenged in any other Court. This Court after passing the said order in A.B.A No.7861 of 2023 has become functus officio and this Court cannot form an opinion at this stage that the said order is bad in law, of course it is open for any superior court to express such opinion. 13. The further aggravating factor is that the opposite party no.2 has furnished the bail bond before the trial court by giving an undertaking in his own handwriting that he will keep and maintain the petitioner with full honor and dignity as his lawful wife as and when she resumes conjugal life with the petitioner, without demur and only upon furnishing such undertaking, his bail bond has been accepted by the trial court. So, under such facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the refusal of the opposite party no.2 to resume conjugal life with the petitioner will amount to flouting the condition of the bail bond submitted by the opposite party no.2, before the trial court, basing upon which the opposite party no.2 has been released on bail. 14. Even today in the open Court, the opposite party no.2 is adamant to flout the said condition of the bail bond furnished by him, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 upon furnishing bail bond dated 19.10.2023 in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2515 of 2022 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi is liable to cancelled. 15. Accordingly, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 namely Md. Tanbir Raza @ Tanvir Raza s/o Md. Murtaza in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.52 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2515 of 2022 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi is cancelled. 16. The opposite party no.2 is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a week from the date of this order; failing which, the learned trial court is directed to take all coercive steps for the apprehension of the opposite party no.2 to face the trial. 17. This Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 10/04/2026 Abhiraj/