Binaben vs State of Gujarat and Others

S.H. Vora, J.—The applicant-original complainant, by way of the present application for cancellation of bail filed u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ''Code'') challenges the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4252 of 2013 whereby, the opponent Nos. 2 and 3-accused were granted regular bail in connection with the offence registered before Dariyapur police station being I- C.R. No. 49 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Heard submissions of learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the applicant.

It is the case of the prosecution that since 2007, after deceased-Girishkumar Manharlal Khatri, husband of the present applicant, took over Shrinad Telephone Exchange from the opponent Nos. 2 and 3, at regular intervals, upon asking by deceased-Girishkumar Khatri for his dues from the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 as he was entitled for purchase of material which he used to bring for wiring purposes and so also, since the earlier when deceased took over Shrinad Telephone Exchange from the opponent Nos. 2 and 3, it was not disclosed by the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 of there being deposits lying of consumers with the said exchange, on demand made of such money by deceased-Girishkumar Khatri since November, 2007 onwards starting from November, 2011, 15.11.2011, 02.05.2013, 06.05.2013, on eve of Ganesh Utsav and on 04.10.2013, instances have happened with the deceased where on occasions on demand being made, threats were given to him by the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 and was beaten up as well at the behest of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3. It is also alleged that eventually, at the behest of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3, BSNL office sent notice to the deceased of the dues to be paid by Shrinad Telephone Exchange to the tune of Rs. 5,97,410/- as a whole. On account of threats administered to the deceased by the opponent Nos. 2 and 3, the deceased was put under such a situation and pressure that he was left with no other option but to commit suicide on 04.10.2013 and, therefore, the complaint came to be lodged against the opponent Nos. 2 and 3.

Pursuant to the said complaint, the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred regular bail application before filing of the chargesheet u/s 439 of the Code which eventually allowed in favour of them and hence, the present application.

In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the papers and after hearing submissions of both the sides, released the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 on bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

Learned advocate Mr. Barot for the applicant-original complainant made a grievance that grant of bail though being discretionary order, it is required to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. According to him, nature of offence is one of the basic considerations for grant of bail and more heinous is a crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Barot has relied upon the decision in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. N.C.T. Delhi and Another, and, more particularly, four factors indicated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in para 4 of the said judgment which read as under:--

(a) While granting bail the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

At the same time, learned advocate Mr. Barot has also relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case between Lokesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and the decision rendered in the case of Puran v. Rambilas and another reported in 2011 (6) SCC 338 so as to submit that the learned trial Judge has not indicated reasons for prima facie concluding bail in favour of the accused-opponent Nos. 2 and 3 for the charge of having committed a serious offence. He has also submitted that the learned trial Judge has not undertaken a brief examination to be satisfied about existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, in view of the decision rendered in the case of State Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, . Apart from it, the learned advocate for the applicant has also relied upon the decisions as reflecting in the memo of the petition itself vide grounds H, I, J and K. Except this, no other ground has been urged to cancel the bail granted in favour of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3.

Cancellation of bail is a serious matter and once bail is granted, it can be cancelled only in the circumstances and for the reasons, which have been clearly stated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. It would be appropriate to refer to the decision rendered in the case Puran v. Rambilas (supra) wherein, the appellant therein was charged under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur released the appellant therein, on bail. The High Court cancelled the bail granted to the appellant. The said order was under challenge before the Hon''ble Apex Court and therein, it is observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court that "it was argued that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already 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 bail already granted. It was argued that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course 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. Reliance was placed on Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana in support of this submission. This court observed that in Dolat Ram, it was clarified that the above instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive and one such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime and that too without giving any reasons. This court observed that such an order would be against the principles of law and, interest of justice would require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. This court found that inasmuch as the Sessions Court had ignored vital materials while granting bail, the High Court had rightly cancelled the bail. It was further observed that such orders passed in heinous crimes would have serious impact on the society and an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected."

Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers upon the Court of Sessions regarding bail. While granting bail, the Court considers the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds. Each criminal case presents its own factual scenario and keeping in mind the facts of each case, the Court is required to only opine as to whether there exists prima facie case against the respondent accused. Whereas while cancelling the bail u/s 439(2) of the Code, the Court will have to address to the points whether the accused is likely to temper with the evidence or attempt to interfere with the course of justice or to evade the due course of justice. Apart from it, in the matter of cancellation, the State/complainant requires to point out serious infirmities in the order and such infirmities resulted into miscarriage of justice.

I have also examined the decisions cited at bar and perused the impugned order, more particularly, para 4 thereof. It seems that the learned trial Judge has considered the fact that there is delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint, more particularly, when the complainant is alleging that her husband was tortured/harassed since 2007. Further, it is also found by the learned trial Judge that on 02.05.2013, the deceased was called at the site of opponent Nos. 2 and 3 but no payment was made to him whereas, the incident in question has occurred on 04.10.2013. So, it seems that there was no meeting took place between the deceased and opponent Nos. 2 and 3 in between five months i.e. from 02.05.2013 to 04.10.2013. The learned trial Judge has found that the deceased has never taken any steps against opponent Nos. 2 and 3 for recovery of the dues/deposits which is alleged to be due and payable by the opponent Nos. 2 and 3. The learned trial Judge has found that prior to the incident, Shrinad Telephone Exchange is burnt. In addition to such findings, the learned trial Judge has also found that the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 are the residents of Ahmedabad City and there is no past criminal background and so, further found that it is not likely that the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 would escape the trial. So, from the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, it appears that the learned trial Judge has briefly examined the case and thereafter, he prima facie found the case in favour of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 to enlarge them on bail. Considering the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra), it seems that the learned trial Judge has not found sufficient evidence establishing the guilt of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 in support of the charge for the reasons recorded in para 4 of the order. So, it seems that the learned trial Judge has exercised his powers in a judicious manner and considered the relevant material placed on record including suicide note of the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Barot for the applicant could not point out that while accepting the application of the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 u/s 439 of the Code, the learned trial Judge has ignored any relevant material placed on record. So, looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to invoke powers of this Court u/s 439(2) of the Code and the decisions cited at bar are not helpful to the applicant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and, therefore, they are not discussed at length as any finding, if recorded at this stage with regard to the nature of accusations and offence on record, would prejudice the trial. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application and the learned trial Judge has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order. Hence, the application is rejected at admission stage.