Kishan Singh Tomar vs State of M.P. and Others

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This is an application u/s 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is father of the deceased Smt. Lalita. Daughter of the petitioner was married with Ramkumar on 27.04.2008. The in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry. They used to demand dowry and due to non fulfillment harassed the daughter of the petitioner. On account of harassment in connection with demand of dowry, Lalita died under suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Crime no. 150/2013 under Sections 304B, 498A/34 of I.P.C. was registered against the respondents. The respondents moved an application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge Morena which has been allowed vide order dated 1.03.2013. and 07.03.2013 on the ground that they are old aged persons and are living separately at village Rupakitor Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this application.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Court has not duly considered the facts of the case and gravity of the offence. The view taken by the learned sessions Judge in granting bail is not based on any reasoning. Accused persons had filed forged ration card, medical treatment slip and voter card. It is further submitted that accused persons have also threatened the complainant and witnesses for compromise. Hence prayed for cancellation of the bail.

Learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the bail. The respondent no. 2 & 3 have never demanded any dowry and harassed the deceased. Deceased was residing separately with her husband and respondent no. 2 & 3 are residing at village Rupakitor Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2& 3 have never given any threat to the complainant and his witnesses. It is prayed that application be dismissed.

I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before proceeding to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to refer the legal position regarding cancellation of bail.

In the case of Dolatram and Others vs. State of Haryana it has been held by Hon''ble Apex Court, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 237:

Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial state 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 interference 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 canceled 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that respondents no. 2 & 3 have submitted forged documents regarding their residence. He has filed the copy of Bhuadhikar Pustika and Pariwar Patra. The petitioner has submitted an application under RTI Act to concerning Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sabalgarh for getting the copy of documents but the application is still pending and no final order has been passed by concerning Janpad Panchayat Sabalgarh. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 & 3 has filed copy of Bhuadhikar Pustika and Pariwar Patra which shows that the address of the respondents no. 2& 3 has been mentioned at village Rupakitor Police Station Sabalgarh district Morena. Annexure P-5 is the copy of the application filed under R.T.I. Act. Annexure P-6 is Panchnama showing that respondents no. 2& 3 are residing at Morena and Annexure P-7 is the Electoral List, in which the names of respondents no. 2 & 3 are mentioned. Annexure P-8 is the copy of the complaint but it does not clear to whom it has been mentioned.

The petitioner has not filed any other evidence to show that Bhuadhikar Pustika and Pariwar Patra are forged one. Merely on the basis of panchnama and the voter list it cannot be held that document Bhuadhikar Pustika and Pariwar Patra are forged one.

So far as giving threatening to the complainant is concerned, Annexure P-8 does not show that to whom it has been addressed, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent no. 2 & 3 have given threatening to the petitioner. In view of the above, it appears that the ground on which the petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to respondents no. 2 & 3 is afterthought and has no ring of truth. Consequently petition is dismissed.

C.c. as per rules.