Dolat Ram and Ors v. State of Haryana

Order

'lhis Criminal Petition is filed under Sectic,n 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O2S (,BNSS) seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of responderrt No.2/accused No.1 in crl.M.P.No.613 of 2o2s in crime No.416 of 2022 on the rrre of the X A<lditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatoally.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is tha_ basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner I de facto complainant, Crime No.416 of '2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) and 6t(21 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against respondent No.2 and others. The accusation made against respondent No.2 is that respondent No.2 colluding with other accused misappropriated the fund of thr: petitioner and transferred more than Rs.6o to 70 lakhs belonging r-o the petitioner Companies, namely NSp International, Frumar Ag;r.i Foods private Limited antl Tejas Food Industries LLp, to the accounts of the other accused persons. Respondent No.2 was arrested on 13.03.2025 and therealter he filed cr1.M.p.No.613 of 2025 for lrant of regular 2 bail and the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Kukatpally, granted bail on 19'O3'2025'

3. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande' learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Chandra Shekar Reddy' learned counsel for the petiltoner lde facto complainant' Mr' S' Chalapathi Rao' learned counsel representing Mr' Tarun Ram Aitham' learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No 1 and Mr' Syed Yasar Mamoon' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No 1 State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate without properly considering the gravity of the offence and without assigning reasons granted bail in favour of respondent No.2, especially there are specific allegations are levelled against him that he has committed grave offence and diverted the huge amount of the petitioner ComPanies to his he committed cheating and relatives and friends accounts and conspiracy and the ingredients of Sections 318(4)' 316(5)' 316(2) and 6l(2) of the BNS are attracted against him' The punishment for the offence under Section 316(5) of the BNS is life or 10 years imprisonment and the punishment for the offence Section 6l(2) of the BNS- is imprisonment for life When the punishment for the \ rei..:.. 3 - offences 1eve1led against respondent No.2 is more than seven yea-rs, the learned Magistrate ought to have record the reasons while granting bail. The learned Magistrate without gir ing any reasons granted bail and the same is liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that as per Section 111 of the BNSS, evr:n the sub-clause of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Section provides for punishment not less than five years and which may extend to imprisonment for life. Hence, considering the serious nature of the alle6lrttions contained in the complarnt, the learned Magistrate ought to have cancel the bail appli<:ation of respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate even without verifl.ing the complaint, on the other hand, granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. When the investigatiorL is pending, the lezuned Magistrate without verifying the record LLeld that most of the investrgation has been completed and further i-reld that having considerecl the gravity of the offence. instead of dir;missed the bail granted bail in favour of respondent No.2. He fi:rther submitted that respondent No.2 has committed grave ofli: nce and at his instance on1y, huge amount of the petitioner ,:ompanies were transferrerl to various accounts belonging to his lelatives, friends and his custodial interrogation is very muc:t required for conductifif investigation. The learned Magistrate granted bail in 7 4 favour of resPondent No'2 mechanically even without any reasons In these and the same are not sustainable under law' circumstances, the bail granted in favour of respondent No 2 is liable to be cancelled' 4.1 . In support of his contentlon, he relied uPon the following judgments:

1. Deepak Yadav v State of U'P and Anotherl; 2. JaiPrakash Singh v State of Bihar and Another2; 3. Central Bureau Investigation v' Subramani GoPala krishnan3 '

5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No'2/accused No'1 submitted that application frled by the petitioner is not maintainable under law, as respondent No.2 has not violated any condition and he has complied the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate in the bail order dated lg 'O3 '2025 and he has been cooperating with the investigation agency ald furnished entire information which they sought by and he never interfered with the investigation nor influence any witnesses' The Investigating Offrcer has not made any complaint or hled any counter or made any L 2Q22 Lle Law SC 562 2 t20!21 4 scc 379 , izo t t1 s scc 296 \ . .rra{r&r.,. J allegations against respondent No.2 that he is inl,.rfering with the investigation and not cooperating with the investigration. He further submitted that respondent No.2 fiied application se:king relaxing of condition -\o-2 of the order 19.O3.2O25 and the serd condition was also relaxed by the learned Magistrate and at no ptint of time, the lnvestigating Ofhcer has not raised any objection. Hence, the applicatiorr hled by the petitioner for seeking cancellation of the bail is not maintainable and the same is liable to be disnrissed.

5. 1 . He further submitted that the petitioner has not fi1ed any piece of evidence before the prosecution, when respondent No.2 was in judicial custody that he mis-appropriated the Lruge amount of the petitioner company including audit report. Th. petitioner has not hled anv single audit report statement eit.eer before the prosecution or before this Court and only the pc titioner reiying upon the Xerox copy of the bank statement ald the r;ame cannot be taken into consideration. He further submitted .:i-rat respondent No.1 prose<:ution has also not filed counter alleging that not made any allegations against respondent No.2 that he is rnterfering with the investigation or tampering with the witnesses or ,hreatening the witnesses. Hence, the crimina_l petition is liable t,c be dismissed. --t'' He further submitted that the petitioner has not vi,:lated any bail I 6 .-\i-'1 .l conditions and the same cannot be cancelled and it is violative of Article 27 of the Constitution of India.

5.2 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

1. Dolat Ram and Ors v. State of Haryana +; 2. Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and anothers;

3. Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra6; and 4. Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through Directorate of EnforcementT.

6. Learned Additional public prosecutor submits that respondent No.2 has committed grave offence. When the investigation is pending, the learned Magistrate has granted bail in favour of respondent No.2/accused No.1 without assigned any reasons and the same is liable to be cancelled. 7 . Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the compiaint lodged by the petitioner, Crime No.416 of 2O2S was registered for the offences 4 (1995)1 SCC 349 s AIR 1999 SC 3026 6 11992)4 SCC 272 7 2024 Lire Law Suit 734 ) \ / -7 7 under sections 318(4), 316(s), 316(2) and 61(:r) of the BNS and respondent No.2/accused No. 1 was arrested on 1C.O3.2025 ald he has filed bajl appiication, namely Crl.M.p.No.6l 3t of 2O2;invoking the provisron of Section 480 for grant of ba, o. the file of the X Additional Metropolitarr Magistrate, Kukatpe:lly. Learned Magistrate after hearing the parties granted bai t on 19 .O3.2O25 tvit h t he [, rllowing conditions: 1 2 3 I his court. Thc Petitioner/Accused No. 1 shall be releesed on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,0()O/_, along 'with two sureties for like sum to the sa[rsfaction of ()n his release, the petitioner/Accused l!o. I shall ilppcar before S.H.O, p.S. Gachibou,li, 66 every Monday and Thursday in between 1O AM to 12 pM for a period of two months c rr till the filing of charge sheet *.hichever is earlier. 'I'he Petitioner/Accused No. 1 is further djrected not to 1|trs.1 or induce the prosecution witnesses in any m anner. B. Even according to the learned counsel for the parties, respondent No.2 has complied rvith the conditions iraposed by the Court below-. 1.he petitioner, u,ho is the d.e factocomplainant, filed the present criminal petition seeking cancellation cf bail on the ground that the learned Magistrate without assigninp; axJ/ reasons a granted bail and the punishment for the offences levelled against respondent No.2 is more ten years' Respondent No'2/accused No'1 Iiled counter, wherein he specifrcally pleaded that he complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting bail in Cr1.M.P.No.613 of 2Ci25 dated 19'03'2O25 and subsequently' he filed application seeking relaxation of the condition No 2 and the same was also allowed He specihcally averred in the counter- affrdavit that he is not interfering with the investigation or influencing the witnesses and he is cooperating with the investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also not placed any evidence nor Investigating Officer hled any reply to the counter of respondent No'2 denying the averments made by No.2 that he is not interfering in the course of or tampering with the evidence or threatening the It is also relevant to place on record that the witnesses. Investigating Oflicer has not frled any application seeking cancellation of the bail that respondent No'2 is not cooperating with the investigation and not furnishing the information/ evidence which they sought and his custodial interrogation is required investigation respondent In Dolat Rarn supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specificaliy it cannot be cancelled 9 stated that once the bail is granted' Y-l .i - t 9 mechanically *ithout there berng any supervening c:ircumstances. Similarll,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra supra held that thr: cancellation of the bail is only copy of the order if there is inr erference or to interfere with the dr-re course of aciministratii'e justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course ofjustice of abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner along ri'ith other. Similarly, in Aslam Babulal Desai supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid that the bail can be ,:n1y cancelled if the accused mrsused his liberty or interfering wittr the case of investigation and attempts to tamper with the evidence and threatens the u.itnesses or there is likelihood of l-ris fleeing to another counrry and Similarly, in prem prakash suprz,, the hon,ble Supreme Cour1. held that bail is Ruie and Jail is an r_,:<ception and whilc granting the bail in most serious offence s, the said proposition a,<1 also by considering the ambit of Artir:le 21 of the Cons[itution of lndia.

10. In Jai Prakash Singh supra, tine Hon,ble Supreme Court in Para No.18, reads as under: " 18. Parame ters for grant of anticipatory ba il in a serious ol'fencc are required to be satisfied and lur[her rvhile granting such relief, the court must recc,rd the ) 10 reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been en roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty." In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail in grievous offences may be granted only in exceptional circumstances, upon prima facie satisfaction of false implication and minimal risk of misusing the liberty, along with duly recording the reasons for granting such relief by the court.

11. In Deepak Yadav supro, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No.3 1, reads as under: "31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence o[ supervening circumstances. Following are the illusLrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled: a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant rnaterial of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material ot-l record. b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially 17 - lr,hen there is prima facie misuse of posilion and power over the victim. c) lVhere the past crimir b:ril. rhe accused," ".-or*l:rr.:."::,il:fi;t d) Where bail has been granted on un _enable grounds. e) \Vhere serious order granting justice. discrepancies are found in the bail thereby causing prejuriice to l) Wherc the grant oI bail r rirst prtrce given the ,r,"t" charges against th" . hi m ror bail and,r,. g) Wi'rcn the order granting ri'himsical, capricious and of thc given case.,, "o' appropriater in the T serious nature rf the ";T""::. Ij;::":1",',,,,,,." bail is appzu.ently perverse in the facts In the above s order is flar.ved. the bail can be aid judgment, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that cancelled without new developments il- the granting . I(e_r. reasons inclucle reiiance on irrelevant or weak material, ignoring the accused,s influence or crimi.ral history, granting bail or-r unjustified or untenable grounds, serious errors in the bail order, or charges that are too serious to justify bail. 12. In Subramani Gopala krishnan supra, the Hon,b le Supreme Court held in para 23, reads as under: l_ I2 .- \-1 "23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellaLion ol bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the cluc course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. Thcse are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction ol the court on the basis of the materials placed on record o[ the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other w'ords, bail once granted should not be c.ancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether anv supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to a1low the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during thc trial." In the above said judgment, the Hon"ble Supreme Courl held that the criteria for the cancellation of bail differ from those for an appeal against the granting of bail. Cancellation of bail requires "cogent and overwhelming" circumstances. These may include interference with the administration of justice, attempts to evade justice, or abuse of the bail conditions. Additionaliy, the possibility q \ \ \ I -. 13 of the acclrsed absconding can justify the cancr:l]ation of bail. However, baii should not be cancelied mechanicaily or arbitrarily; rather, the court must assess whether supervening; circumstances have rendered the continuation of bail detrimental to a fair trial.

13. The judgments w,hich are relied upon by the jearned Senior Counsel are n ot applicable to the facts and circunr stances of the case on hand on the ground that the Investigating C)fficer has not raised any grour-rd that respondent No.2/accuse<i No.1 is not cooperating with the investigation and he is interfering or influencing the u,itnesses or tampering with the eviclence and his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of investigation.

14. It is relevant to mention that in State .of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosus, the IJon,ble Apex Court held that the object of Section 39O of the Cr.p_C is, if ultimately the order ,:f acquittal is converted into the order of conviction, the accused must be available for trnclergoing sentence. The second object ol Section 390 is that when an appeal against acquittal is finail1. heard, the accused presence at the hearing can be secured. Therefore, there is a power vested in the High Court to arrest an acquit:ted accused and bring him before it or the Trial Court 8 lrszo;: scc r The objec, is that the Y-.t\l - accused remains under the jurisdiction of the Court dealing u.ith the appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an accused. Therefore, as a normal ru1e, where an order under Section 39O of the Cr.P.C. is passed, the accused must be admittcd to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This rule must be applied while exercising power under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C., as the position of the acquitted accused is on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial. When an accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent untii he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted accused to prison be passed under Section 390.

15. It is already stated supra that ihere are no specific allegations against respondent No.2/accused No. 1 by the Investigating Officer that he is interfering with the investigation, influencing the witnesses, attempting to tarnper the evidence and threatening the witnesses and his custodial interrogation is required for further \ *- I J investigation. In the absence of any such ground, this; Court is not inclined to ,:ancel the bai1, which was granted in favour of respondent No.2. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingll,, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER { lvletropolitan Magistrate, Kuka tpally Ranga Redd y District

1. The X Additional 2. The Station Hou se Officer, G achibowli, Police Station Gachibowli 3. One CC to SRI RAMAVARA I\4 CHANDRASHE KAR REDDYAd vocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tela ngana at 5. Two CD Copies KR Hyderabad tourl tlyberabad I ': .i. .,*;: I HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4744 of 2025 rU R rilE t4 ,A (-) I r-1)<i 10 ,ttJL wa (n f' t DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION Iah b lD(