Geeta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Manoj Kumar Garg, J

The present bail cancellation application has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner (complainant) against the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.298/2022 arising out of FIR No.72/2020 registered at Police Station Balotra, District Barmer for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC releasing the accused-respondent No.2 on bail.

Mr. Deendayal Panwar, husband of the petitioner (complainant) – Smt. Geeta Devi present-in-person submits that the bail application of the accused respondent No.2 was granted by learned trial court vide order dated 31.05.2022 and the bail application of co-accused namely Daulat Ram & Pukhraj was granted by this Court on 20.12.2021. It is further submitted that before granting bail to accused-respondent No.2 Champa Lal, he along with 15-20 persons came and threatened the present petitioner (complainant) and also caused injuries to her. In this regard, on 10.05.2022 an FIR bearing number 118/2022 was also lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer for offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and investigation in the said FIR is still going on. It is submitted that charges have been framed by the trial court against accused respondent No.2-Champa Lal and statement of complainant Geeta Devi (PW.1) has also been recorded. He further argued that accused respondent No.2 Champa Lal did not appear before the trial Court on the date of hearing. He lastly submits that there is an apprehension that the accused persons may give threatening and cause harm to the petitioner (complainant). In these circumstances, the application for cancellation of bail of the accused shall be allowed.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 has supported the order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the co-accused Daulat Ram and Pukhraj had already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The present petitioner (complainant) moved an SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.07.2023 against the order dated 20.12.2021 by which co- accused Daulat Ram & Pukhraj had been enlarged on bail and the same has also been rejected with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial of the case at the earliest. Thereafter, the petitioner (complainant) appeared before the trial Court and trial in the case is going on, therefore, no interference is required from this Court.

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record.

The bail application of accused (respondent No.2) has been granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by learned District and Sessions Judge, Balotra and co-accused Daulat Ram and Pukhraj have also been enlarged on bail by this Court. Thereafter, the SLP filed by the petitioner (complainant) was also dismissed on 05.07.2023 and the trial Court was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously. Now, the charges of the case has been framed against the accused and the statement of Geeta Devi has also been recorded as PW.1.

While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., the primary considerations which weigh with the Court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere with the due course of justice. There is nothing on record that accused-respondent No.2 in any manner threatened the complainant or tried to induce any witness after grant of bail. There is no illegality or irregularity or any perversity in the order impugned.

Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of District & Sessions Judge, Balotra allowing the bail application of the accused-respondent No.2.

The criminal misc. bail cancellation application is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously.