Shekhar Pramanick @ Sekhar Pramanick, Aged about 30 Years, Son of Dipankar Pramanick, Resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Naveen Prakash
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.361 of 2021 ------ Shekhar Pramanick @ Sekhar Pramanick, Aged about 30 Years, Son of Dipankar Pramanick, Resident of House No.105/A New Sitaramdera, Agrico, P.O. and P.S. Agrico, District East Singhbum (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Naveen Prakash (Proprietor of M/s. Bharti Enterprises), Son of Kishan Yadav, Resident of House No.05, Road No.1, Niti Baag Colony, Bhyiyadih, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Jamshedpur, … Opposite Parties District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P. : Ms. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate Mr. Rajan Kr. Tiwary, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. No.16 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 07.09.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.534 of 2020 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to 1 Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021 G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No.2, at the time of hearing of the said A.B.P. No.534 of 2020, suppressed material facts that a co-ordinate Bench granted ‘No coercive steps’ order in Cr.M.P. No.1544 of 2020 vide order dated 11.08.2020. Thus, the said bail order was passed, consequent upon the said material fact having been suppressed by the opposite party No.2. Hence, the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 be cancelled. 4. It is further submitted that learned Sessions Judge considered that during the pendency of the anticipatory bail petition, the interim protection was granted to the accused/opposite party by the Hon’ble High Court but the application for anticipatory bail was pending prior to such protection being granted by the Hon’ble Court and further the same does not amount to suppression of material facts which can be a valid reason for cancellation of the bail and dismissed the application. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1544 of 2020 there was no apprehension of the opposite party No.2 of being arrested for a non-bailable offence, and had the learned Sessions Judge, been aware about the same, the privileges of anticipatory bail ought not have been granted to the opposite party No.2. Hence, suppression of the same amounts to suppression of material facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin vs. The State of West Bengal passed in C.R.R. No.1525 of 2018 wherein in the facts of 2 Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021 that case when the accused of the case while submitting his prayer for regular bail; mentioned in the bail application that no bail application, has either rejected by the High Court or pending for disposal before the High Court and on the basis of such declaration, bail was granted. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering a petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. being filed with a prayer for cancellation of bail of the accused of the case, held that the suppression of earlier bail prayer to the High Court is a fraud practiced upon the court and cancelled the bail. The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge exercised its discretionary jurisdiction and submits that in this case the suppression of direction of ‘No coercive steps’ even when filed earlier, is a suppression of material facts. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. No.16 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 07.09.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.534 of 2020 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be allowed. 6. The learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. No.16 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order 3 Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021 dated 07.09.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.534 of 2020 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1779 paragraph-20 of which reads as under:- “20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail.” and submits that it is a settled principle of law that unless there is allegation against the accused of misusing the liberty of bail or had comported in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed, there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail. 7. It is next submitted that in the anticipatory bail application filed by the opposite party No.2 before the learned Sessions Judge, there is no suppression of material facts because undisputedly; by the time the anticipatory bail petition was filed, the ‘No coercive order’ was not passed by this Court and unlike the facts of the case of Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin vs. The State of West Bengal (supra) in this case, no statement has been made by the opposite party No.2 before the learned Sessions Judge that he did not file any other case. It is 4 Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021 also submitted that there is no specific order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court for grant of bail to the opposite party No.2 or his prayer for anticipatory bail has ever been rejected. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that there must be very cogent and overwhelming circumstances for passing an order seeking cancellation of bail. Broadly speaking the grounds of cancellation of bail are:- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) by indulging in similar criminal activity, interfering with the course of investigation, attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. and there is no such allegation against the opposite party No.2. It is a settled principle of law that the object underlining the cancellation of bail is to protect the bare trial and to secure that justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with evidence; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra & Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 143. 9. Further, the court cannot cancel the bail on the ground alien to the grounds mentioned in Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. as has been held by the 5 Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388. 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the order of ‘No coercive step’ passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr.M.P. No.1544 of 2020 is still in force. The trial has not yet started. There is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 of tampering with the evidence. There is no allegation that in the anticipatory bail application, the opposite party No.2 made any suppression of material facts. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. Application No.16 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 07.09.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.534 of 2020 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 6