The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1907 of 2023 ------- Rani Kumari …... …. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Giri Versus -------- .…. …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Petitioner For the State 07/ Dated 02.02.2024 -------- : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate Ms. Ruchi Mukti, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P -------- The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Rani Kumari with a prayer to cancel the bail of opposite party No.2 Rajesh Giri, as bail was granted earlier by this Court passed in B.A. No. 16397/2021 vide order dated 10.03.2022 on the assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will receive the informant back to her matrimonial home on the same day of his release. It was submitted that the opposite party No.2 Rajesh Giri has not received back the petitioner Rani Kumari to her matrimonial home till date and as such, his bail may be canceled. The provision for cancellation of bail has been enshrined in Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary to cancel the bail, already granted and the same cannot be canceled in a mechanical manner. It is the settled principle of law that bail of the accused already granted is usually canceled if the accused tries to tamper with the evidence or further tries to influence the witnesses. Now, the question is whether not fulfilling the undertaking given by the opposite party No.2 to receive back the petitioner to her matrimonial home can be a ground for cancellation of his bail. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 held : “5. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of -2- administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, it was further observed as follows: “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 cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due 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. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” Therefore, while considering the application for cancellation of bail on the ground of non-compliance of the condition, this Court has to consider whether the alleged violation of undertaking given by the opposite party No.2 amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the opposite party No.2 is implicated. -3- Violation of undertaking given by the opposite party No.2 leading into cancellation of bail granted to him, will deprive him from the liberty granted to him. Therefore, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail, once granted and there cannot be in a mechanical manner while cancellation of bail. Perused the order granting bail to the O.P. No.2 Rajesh Giri. It was submitted on behalf of this opposite party that the dispute between the parties was with regard to entering of the name of the informant in his service book. At the instance of the lawyer of the informant that she was willing to resume her matrimonial relationship, the lawyer of the opposite party had submitted that the petitioner shall receive the informant to her matrimonial home on the day he is released on bail. Usually in a case under section 498A I.P.C., bail is granted to the accused husband if no injury is found on the person of the wife or there is compelling circumstance to reject the same. The undertaking was given by the learned lawyer of the opposite party in response to the submissions that the informant was ready to resume her matrimonial relationship. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that no case for cancellation of bail of the opposite party No.2 is made out. As such, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)