Dolly Kumari vs State of Jharkhand & Anr

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 of this case, in terms of the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by this court in ABA No. 4586 of 2018.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the opposite party no. 2 of this case was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail on the condition of satisfying the court below that he has resumed conjugal life with the petitioner of this case and the opposite party no. 2 of this case is staying with the petitioner of this case in a rented accommodation and he will keep and maintain the petitioner of this case with full dignity and honour as his lawful wife. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 of this case has violated the order of this court as he is not keeping and maintaining the petitioner of this case, hence, the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 of this case vide order dated 26.02.2019 passed by this court in ABA No. 4586 of 2018 be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 , Mr. Awnish Shankar, drawing attention of the court to the deposition of the petitioner in original maintenance case no. 99 of 2018 of the court of Principal Judge, Family court, Hazaribagh dated 14.05.2019 submits that in paragraph 13, the petitioner has categorically stated that even after the opposite party no. 2 desires to keep her, the petitioner will not reside with him as she has no trust on opposite party no. 2. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the opposite party no. 2 has not violated any condition but as the petitioner is not desirous to resume conjugal life with the opposite party no. 2 hence just to harass the opposite party no. 2, this case has been filed fraudulently. It is next submitted by Mr. Awnish Shankar, that the opposite party no. 2 of this case is ready and willing to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner of this case subject to the condition that the same will be adjusted from the maintenance amount, if any granted to the petitioner in any maintenance case without prejudice to defence of the opposite party no. 2.

It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that bail can ordinarily be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481.

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 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 as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349.

After carefully going through the materials in records, it is crystal clear that there is no allegation against the opposite party no. 2 of any misconduct after he has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 of this case, in terms of the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by this court in ABA No. 4586 of 2018 be cancelled.

The opposite party no. 2 is directed to deposits ad interim victim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the petitioner as undertaken by him upon the said conditions, by depositing the same in shape of demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner of this case, within eight weeks from the date of this order in the trial court, failing which, the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 of this case, in terms order dated 26.02.2019 passed by this court in ABA No. 4586 of 2018 shall stand cancelled.

In case, the opposite party no. 2 deposits the said demand draft undertake by him, the court below is directed to issue notice to the petitioner of this case and on her proper identification, the court below shall handover the same to her forthwith and the same will be adjusted towards maintenance in any proceeding between the parties in future or the final settlement, if any, takes place between the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.