The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2438 of 2022 Uday Pandey 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manish Kumar Singh ------ Versus ------ …. Petitioner .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM
Legal Reasoning
dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court in B.A. No.2600 of 2021, the opposite party No.2 was admitted to bail. It is next submitted that earlier the opposite party No.2 was given the privileges of anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.01.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.9194 of 2019 and in terms of the said order, the petitioner was given the privileges of anticipatory bail with the condition of handing over the possession of the land bearing plot Nos.1658 and 1659 under Khata No.115 of Mouza Kadma No.2 in the district of Hazaribagh to the complainant. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 did not surrender before the learned trial court in terms of the said order dated 20.01.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.9194 of 2019 and subsequently he was arrested by the police and he was admitted to regular bail vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.2600 of 2021. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 furnished an undertaking before the trial court, certified copy of which has been annexed with the brief as Annexure-4 Series at page-25-26 of the brief wherein the opposite party No.2 has mentioned that he has no objection from the possession of the vendee Smt. Laxmi Devi and the opposite party No.2 will not go over or near the said disputed land between the parties including the house and shop bearing plot Nos.158 and 159 under Khata No.115 of village Kadma No.2 and that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 after furnishing the undertaking and bail bonds, was released on 17.03.2021 but he has not handed over the possession of the land bearing plot Nos.1658 and 1659 under Khata No.115 of Mouza Kadma No.2 in the district of Hazaribagh to Laxmi Devi. It is next submitted that the petitioner informed the Officer-in-Charge of Katkamdag Police Station, Hazaribagh in writing that the opposite party No.2 has violated the order of this Court. Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.2600 of 2021 by this Court, be cancelled. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha- learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.2600 of 2021 passed by this Court. Mr. Sinha next submits that there is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 of not co-operating with the trial or having ever gone over or near the disputed land in question. Mr. Sinha further submits that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite party No.2 did not hand over the possession of the said land to the petitioner. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that the mutation of the said land has been done by the wife of the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner and petitioner are regularly paying rent in respect of the said land and it is the petitioner’s family who are in possession of the land but they did not want measurement of the land because of their evil desire. It is next submitted that mediation took place between the parties wherein the opposite party No.2 offered the petitioner for getting the land measured which was refused by the petitioner. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 is a handicap person and to harass him, this false case has been foisted against the opposite party No.2. Hence, it is submitted that bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide the order dated 10.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.2600 of 2021 by this Court ought not be cancelled. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that rejection of bail and cancellation of bail are to be considered on different basis. Bail already granted can be cancelled only on very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Broadly speaking, the grounds are: (a) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (b) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; (c) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; (d) possibility of the accused absconding. Of course the grounds mentioned above are merely illustrative and not exhaustive, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dolat Ram & Others vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 and the same has inter alia been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghubir Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, broadly speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are:- (a) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (b) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; or (c) abuse of the liberty granted to him. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of any misconduct on the part of the opposite party no.2 of (a) interfering or attempting to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (b) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; (c) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; (d) possibility of the accused absconding. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 in terms of the order dated 10.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.2600 of 2021 be cancelled. Accordingly, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/
Arguments
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate Order No.08 Dated- 24/02/2023 ------ Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.2600 of 2021 by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order