- (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard the counsel. In pursuance of a complaint under Ss. 498-A, 379 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the second respondent (wife), the appellant (husband) was arrested on 11/8/2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, by order dtd. 30/11/2006, granted provisional bail for a period of one month so that the matter of reconciliation between the parties could take place, as the appellant had inter alia submitted that he was willing to maintain his wife with dignity.
(2.) THEREAFTER , the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 7/5/2007, confirmed the provisional bail earlier granted. While so doing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also noted the submission of the appellant that on release from jail on 3/12/2006, he along with his brother-in-law went to the house of his wife on 7/5/2007 but his wife's brother and father abused and assaulted him and, therefore, he had filed an informatory petition before the ACJM, Danapur on 8/12/2006. He stated that his attempt to reconcile with his wife was frustrated by his brother-in-law and father-in-law. Thereafter, the second respondent wife filed an application for cancellation of bail. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dtd. 12/9/2007, rejected the said application as no ground was made out for cancelling the bail. That order was challenged by the wife in a revision petition before the High Court.
(3.) THE High Court, by impugned order dtd. 15/12/2008, cancelled the bail granted to the appellant and directed him to surrender before the Court within 10 days. The only reason given by the High Court for cancelling the bail was that during the course of hearing it had directed both the parties to appear before the Court and when both the parties appeared and efforts were made for reconciliation, the appellant herein had refused to accept the wife. The High Court, therefore, inferred that the appellant had obtained bail by making false and wrong submissions. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.;