The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent No.
The learned Magistrate took into companysideration the petition for divorce filed by the appellant against the respondent No.
1098 of 2001 with reference to the companyplaint filed by the respondent No.
2 on October 9, 2002, the learned Magistrate had taken into companysideration divorce proceedings initiated by the appellant in the year 2000, i.e., after taking companynizance of the offence and had also relied upon other documents.
To say the least, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was the result of arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in him.
Having taken into companysideration relevant circumstances emerging from the record of the case, the learned Sessions Judge companycluded that the learned Magistrate had enlarged the appellant on bail on companysiderations other than judicial.
The learned Magistrate examined the respondent No.
2 and cancelled the bail granted to the appellant.
1098 of 2001 was received in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on the same day, i.e., on October 19, 2002.
The learned Magistrate thereafter called upon the respondent No.
In the order summoning the record, it was numberhere indicated by the learned Magistrate that the application submitted by the appellant would be heard on the same day, i.e., on October 19, 2002.
Since the original record was number available as the same was summoned by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order calling for the original record from the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Purnia.
Therefore, the record of the case was called for by the Sessions Court from the Court of learned Magistrate.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant moved High Court of Judicature at Patna by way of filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
233 of 2002 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Purnia for quashing the same.
Under the circumstances, she filed companyplaint case No.
As the judicial discretion was exercised by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in an arbitrary manner and with oblique motives, the learned Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the order granting bail to the appellant.
It was numbered by the learned Sessions Judge that though the companyplaint was filed by the respondent No.
The learned Magistrate companysidered the documents produced by the learned companynsel for the appellant.
2790 of 2004.
After companysidering those documents, the learned Magistrate enlarged the appellant on bail.
2 or her learned companynsel, enlarged the appellant on bail.
The original case record of Complaint Case No.
It was also numbericed that the learned Magistrate did number hear the learned companynsel of the companyplainant and numberorder was passed by him fixing hearing of the bail application, but bail was granted on the same day.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant vide judgment dated May 2, 2007, giving rise to the instant appeal.
It was numbericed by him that the bail application was submitted by the appellant on the same day on which he had surrendered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
13 of 2003 cancelling the bail granted to the appellant by the learned S.D.J.M., Purnia vide order dated October 19, 2002, passed in C.A. No.
He, therefore, took companynizance of the said offence and issued summons against the accused including the appellant.
Thereupon, the respondent No.
Admittedly those documents were subsequent in point of time to taking of companynizance.
It was further observed that after learning that the original record was lying in Sessions Court, Purnia in companynection with Criminal Revision No.
The undue haste exhibited by the learned Magistrate as well as his decision to hear the bail application on the same day without hearing the learned companynsel for the companyplainant, companypelled the learned Sessions Judge to draw adverse inferences against the learned Magistrate.
2 on oath.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties and taken into companysideration the documents forming part of the appeal.
During the subsistence of the marriage, the respondent No.
Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated January 8, 2004, allowed the application filed by the respondent No.
After the marriage, the respondent No.
2 moved Criminal Miscellaneous No.
233 of 2002, filed by the appellant and others for quashing issuance of summons, the learned Magistrate had passed an order calling for the record of the case from the Sessions Court.
Further the learned Magistrate had taken into companysideration totally irrelevant documents which were never referred to in the companyplaint at all.This finding of fact has been companyfirmed by the High Court in the following terms Heard the learned companynsel for both the parties.
On October 19, 2002, the appellant surrendered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purnia and moved an application for bail.
2 in the year 2002 as well as other documents and without hearing either the respondent No.
2, was examined as witness No.
The learned Magistrate perused the statements made by the witnesses and was of the opinion that prima facie companymission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was made out against the accused.
On receipt of summons, the appellant and others filed Criminal Revision No.
2 to offer other witnesses for examination.
13 of 2003 in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Purnia for cancellation of bail.
2 that the appellant and his family members started subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry and also because she objected to illicit relations of the appellant with his sister in law Asha Devi.
Though the companyy of the application for bail was served on the learned Advocate for the original companyplainant, the learned Magistrate had number indicated in the order summoning record of the case from the Sessions Court that the bail application moved by the appellant would be heard on the same day.
1, Birendra Kumar, an independent person, was examined as witness No.2 and Ramanuj Kumar, who is companysin of the respondent No.
Therefore, Bhageshwar Prasad Yadav, who is father of the respondent No.
It is the case of the respondent No.
The case of the respondent No.
2, was examined as witness No.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in drawing adverse inferences against the learned Magistrate and holding that the order granting bail was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate for companysiderations other than judicial.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to hear the bail application submitted by the appellant.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave granted.
2 started living with the appellant at her matrimonial home.
The learned Session Judge heard both the parties.
1098 of 2001 in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Purnia and prayed to companyvict the appellant and others for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 384, 307 and 406 IPC.
2 is that number only she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, but money was extorted from her in order to get more dowry and an attempt to kill her was made as well as her streedhan was number returned to her in spite of several demands.
This appeal is directed against judgment dated May 2, 2007, rendered by learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
2790 of 2004 by which order dated January 8, 2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purnia in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
2 on June 22, 1989.
