- (1.) THE petitioner who happens to be the wife of opposite party no.2, has filed the petition with a prayer that opposite party no. 2 has obtained bail from this Court on 10.6.2013 on misleading submissions vide BA No. 4359 of 2013. In para 7 of the bail application, opposite party No. 2 has contended that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife /informant with full dignity and care. During hearing of the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner was present and it was submitted that the informant wife/petitioner is also ready to join her matrimonial home subject to assurance that she shall not be subjected to torture for want of dowry.
(2.) NOW by filing the present petition, it is submitted that only to get bail, opposite party no.2 has made this Court under impression that he is ready to keep his wife with full dignity and care, but in fact, he was not intending so, which is apparent from the fact that after his release from custody, he never fulfilled his assurance which he had given before this Court. The petitioner is still ready to join her matrimonial home to look after her children. It is further submitted that the elder son is in the custody of opposite party no.2, whereas the younger son is with the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that opposite party no. 2 had gone to the house of the petitioner to bring her back, but, in turn, he was assaulted by his parents in law and that information was immediately given to the trial court. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner had obtained order of bail by misleading this Court. Once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled only on the ground that the accused has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between him and the other side. The liberty of the accused who has been granted bail shall not be curtailed at the mercy of the informant or other party to the compromise. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the case of Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee, 2004 AIR(SC) 1699 and in the case of Janeshwar Mehta Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010 2 JLJR 34. Heard the parties and I have gone through the case record of BA No. 4359 of 2013 and the order dated 10.6.2013 by which opposite party no.2 has been granted bail. It is evident from perusal of para 7 of the bail application that opposite party no. 2 voluntarily expressed his willingness to keep his wife/ informant with full dignity and care and the contention made in para 7 was corroborated by the learned counsel during his submissions. Considering pious intention of the accused opposite party no. 2, he was granted bail and this Court also intended that the spouses should continue their future conjugal life in a peaceful manner and for that, direction was given to the trial court to watch the conduct of the parties and the opposite party no.2 was also directed to remain present with his wife/ informant on the date fixed, but he did not appear and on one ground or the other, again, litigation between the spouses continue and they have started raising allegation against each other.;