Patna High Court
Babloo Sharma vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2364 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2014 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda
======================================================
Babloo Sharma, son of Kesho Sharma, resident of Village - Mustafapur, P.S. -
Giriyak, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vibha Devi, wife of Babloo Sharma, resident of Village - Mustafapur, P.S. -
Giriyak, District - Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present petition is being filed for quashing of
order dated 24.09.2018 passed in G.R. No. 4049/14 arising out
of Mahila P.S. Case No. 70 of 2014, whereby learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif has
rejected the petition dated 22.09.2017 filed by the petitioner for
confirmation of provisional anticipatory bail granted by this
Court vide order dated 13.04.2015 in Cr. Misc. No. 14650 of
2015.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant/O.P.
No.2 alleged that her husband solemnized second marriage with
another lady and he used to torture her. She further alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2364 of 2019 dt.28-07-2026
2/5
since 2006, her husband did not come and not bearing
maintenance to her and her child. He threatened to kill her. On
30.11.2014
, while she had gone to the Nanihal of her husband at
village Pepernausa, her in-laws members had snatched her
earrings and mangalsutra and assaulted her. The informant/O.P.
No.2 alleged that accused Pankaj Sharma, Deepak Sharma and
Kesho Sharma used to torture her. On the basis of aforesaid
written statement of the informant/O.P. No.2, the present case
has been instituted against the named accused persons.
4. In connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner
pressed his anticipatory bail petition before this Court, which
was registered as Cr. Misc. No. 14650 of 2015, where
considering all aspects of the matter, the same was disposed off
vide order dated 13.04.2015, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the
State.
The petitioner being the husband of the informant is
apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 498A
and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
The basic accusation is of torture and performing
second marriage.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner wherein it has been stated at paragraphs 2
and 3 that petitioner has not performed second marriage
and petitioner is ready to keep the informant as wife with
full dignity and honour, paragraph nos. 3 and 4 read as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2364 of 2019 dt.28-07-2026
3/5follows:-
“2. That the petitioner has never solemnized second
marriage.
3. That the petitioner is always ready to keep his wife
with full dignity and honour.”
Learned counsel for the informant submits that the
informant accepts the offer of the petitioner.
Considering the present stand of the petitioner, let the
above named petitioner be released on provisional
anticipatory bail for one year in the event of arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period
of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with
Mahila P.S. Case No.70 of 2014, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Both sides shall appear before the learned court
below on 27th April 2015 when the petitioner will take the
informant to keep her as wife with full dignity and honour.
The provisional bail of the petitioner will be
confirmed by learned court below in three eventualities (i)
if the matrimonial harmony is substantially restored (ii) if
the informant fails to appear before the learned court
below or (iii) if the informant gets reluctant to reconcile
the issue.”
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner that there were three pre-conditions to confirm
the provisional bail, firstly, if the matrimonial harmony is
substantially restored; secondly, if the informant fails to appear
before the learned court below and, thirdly, if the informant gets
reluctant to reconcile the issue.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2364 of 2019 dt.28-07-2026
4/5
6. It is pointed out that the provisional bail of this
petitioner was not confirmed under first clause that “the
matrimonial harmony is substantially restored” was not
complied with doe to fault of petitioner.
7. It is submitted that the finding of learned trial court in
this connection is completely perverse for the reason that this
petitioner refused to keep the informant/O.P. No. 2 at his work
place and filed divorce case on 30.11.2017. It is submitted that
the informant/O.P. No. 2 is continuously living in her
matrimonial home at village due to her service compulsion as
she is the Anganbari Sevika. It is submitted that she is living
there with her son, who is about 25 years old. It is submitted
that petitioner in his professional capacity usually reside at
Jadugora, Jamshedpur and, therefore, it is not possible to for
him to visit his parental home frequently where the informant
resided. It is submitted that in such view of the matter, the
rejection of provisional bail of this petitioner is not justified and,
therefore, the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 is fit to be set-
aside/quashed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the informant/O.P. No.
2 could not disputed the aforesaid factual submissions, however
it is submitted that petitioner must visit his paternal home where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2364 of 2019 dt.28-07-2026
5/5
the informant/O.P. No. 2 is residing. It is submitted that
petitioner solemnized his second marriage at his work place.
9. In view of aforesaid, non-confirmation of provisional
bail of the petitioner under Condition No. 1, as discussed
aforesaid, is not appears convincing and, therefore, the
impugned order dated 24.09.2018 is hereby set-aside/quashed.
10. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
11. Considering the peculiar facts of this case as
discussed aforesaid, this Court, by exercising its inherent power
as available under section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the
B.N.S.S., is hereby confirmed the provisional bail bond of the
petitioner with same bailor and bond, till disposal of the case.
12. Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial
positively at its earliest in accordance with law as the matter is
of the year 2014.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.07.2026 Transmission Date 28.07.2026
