Dr. Leena Yadav vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 439(2) Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4483 of 2019.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the opposite party No.2 was granted the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court in terms of order dated 17.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4483 of 2019 with the condition that the opposite party No.2 will not annoy or disturb his wife in any manner during the pendency of the case. It is next submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is a witness of her case and even her name has been mentioned as a witness in the complainant filed by the petitioner against the opposite party no.2 of this case and on 10.01.2020, the opposite party no.2 came to Ranchi and told the petitioner that he wants to meet their children and with the assurance of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 will not do anything wrong with the petitioner and their children the opposite party no.2 was permitted by the petitioner to meet their children. On 02.03.2020, the opposite party no.2 met with their children on the birthday of their daughter. The opposite party no.2 again threatened and on 14.03.2020, the opposite party no.2 texted one of the staffs of the petitioner's brother-in- law through messenger giving all wrong information about the petitioner with an intention to malign her prestige in the society. It is also submitted that in a pre-litigation case as per order of National Lok Adalat, the amount of maintenances was fixed, but the opposite party no.2 stopped paying the same to the petitioner and as such the act of the opposite party no.2 amounts to tampering of the evidence, Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted by the trial court to the opposite party no.2 in terms order dated 17.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4483 of 2019 be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for cancellation of bail and submits that the allegation against the opposite party no.2 is vague and the verbatim of the words uttered by the opposite party no.2 to the daughter of the petitioner has not been mentioned anywhere in this petition nor the contents of any message allegedly texted by the opposite party no.2 have been annexed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no police complaint lodged by the complainant regarding the allegation of tampering of evidence by the opposite party no.2. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at bar and after going through the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that once bail is granted to an accused person it can ordinarily be cancelled only 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 & Ors. 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 & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349.

After carefully going through the materials in records, it is crystal clear that there is no supervening circumstance on the part of the opposite party no. 2 after being granted bail, to come to a conclusion that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial and have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the opposite party no. 2 to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. Considering the facts of this case and the law discussed above this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 of this case, consequent upon the order dated 17.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4483 of 2019 be cancelled. Accordingly, this petition being without any merit is dismissed.

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.