Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on :25.06.2025 Pronounced on :08.07.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1416 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PINKI SHARMA D/O SOHAN LAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PERMANENT R/AT H.NO 2 VILLAGE SHEDIYA, BHAGWAT, TUINI, CHAKRATA, DEHRADUM, UTTARKHAND – 248 199. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 15, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, NEAR BLUE BELL PUBLIC SCHOOL, ANUBHAVNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 072.
Legal Reasoning
13. It may be noticed that sub-section (2) of Section 436 of the 1973 Code empowers any court to refuse bail without prejudice to action under Section 446 where a person fails to comply with the conditions of bail bond giving effect to the view expressed by this Court in the aforementioned cases. However, it is well settled that bail granted to an accused with reference to bailable offence can be cancelled only if the accused – (1) misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity. interferes with the course of investigation. to tamper with evidence of (2) (3) attempts (4) witnesses. threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation. (5) attempts to flee to another country. (6) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency. (7) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.” 5. None of the postulates laid down by the Apex Court are present in the case at hand to consider the case of the petitioner for cancellation of bail. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the appeal, the appeal stands rejected. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ/SS
Arguments
(BY SRI RAVI KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE NOW BY ACP, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ... APPELLANT 2 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . MR.ABHISHEK MISHRA S/O DINESH KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 145B/21/3J/1 CHANDPUR, SALORI, KAILASHPURI TELIYARGANJ, JODHWAL, ALLAHABAD CAVELLARY LINES UTTAR PRADESH – 211 004. (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SMT.MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/ CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED 30.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-54) IN CRL.MISC.NO.11973/2023 PASSED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF CR.NO.471/2023 CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 354(D), 354(C), 506, 509 AND 504 OF IPC AND SEC.66(E) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v) OF ST/SC (POA) ACT. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2025, COMING ON FOR 3 PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The reason for preferring the appeal is grant of bail by the concerned Court and the complainant has sought cancellation of bail so granted by the concerned Court on the score that bail is obtained by suppressing several facts by the accused. 2. Heard Sri M.B. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt Monica Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. A perusal at the order granting bail would not in any way warrant interference, as the concerned Court has granted bail 4 taking note of the facts in their entirety. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court while granting bail reads as follows: “…. …. …. that on 31-10-2023 requisition also disclose 13. The important point to be taken note of herein is that, admittedly the complainant/victim and the petitioner are husband and wife, they got married on 12-08-2023 and their marriage was registered 10-11-2023 and said fact is evident from the copy of Certificate of Registration of Marriage issued by the concerned authorities and said fact is not denied by the prosecution. Further the perusal of the requisition submitted by the Investigation Officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate would disclose that on 02-11-2023 the Investigation Officer has requested the Court to incorporate Section 376 and 420 of IPC. The the Investigation Officer has recorded the further statement of the complainant/victim and at that time she has stated that the petitioner/accused took her to his room, wherein he under the guise of marrying her, has forcibly committed rape upon her against her will and consent and he also recorded the said incident in his mobile without her knowledge and threatened her of uploading the same in the social media, if she fails to hear his words. So on the basis of the further statement of the complainant/victim, the Investigation Officer has requested the jurisdictional Magistrate to incorporate Section 376 and 420 of IPC. If really the incident as alleged by the complainant/victim had taken place, she would have stated the same in the complaint lodged by her 19-10-2023, so at this stage, the stand taken by the prosecution that the petitioner/accused has committed sexual intercourse upon the complainant against her will and consent cannot be accepted. 14. Several allegations are made against the petitioner/accused, but the petitioner/accused in his bail petition has totally denied the allegations made against him. However, the allegations made against the petitioner/ accused and the ingredients of offences alleged against him will be testified during the course of full-fledged trial. Even the perusal of the record would clearly shows that the petitioner/accused and the complainant/victim are husband and wife. However, the 5 allegations made against the petitioner/accused and the ingredients of the offences alleged against him will be assessed during the course of full-fledged trial. So by considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the petitioner has made out ground to grant anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the prosecution may be set right by imposing stringent conditions on the movements of the petitioner and that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Point No.1 the affirmative.” for consideration is answered in For the purpose of grant of bail what the Court has considered is, in the considered view of this Court, appropriate. There is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The Apex Court in the case of RASIKLAL v. KISHORE1 holds that a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending trial and his bail can only be cancelled, if his conduct subsequent to the release is found to be prejudicial to a fair trial or in any of the circumstances enumerated in the judgment supra. The Apex Court in the said judgment holds as follows: “12. According to this Court a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial, but he forfeits his right to be released on bail if his conduct subsequent to his release is found to be prejudicial to a fair trial. And this forfeiture can be made effective by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. (See Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam 1 (2009)4 SCC 446 6 Mondlkar reiterated by a Constitution Bench in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. Collector of Customs).