M. Uma vs State

P.N. Prakash, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State / R1.

This is a petition for cancellation of the bail that has been granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No.1308 of 2012 on 15.06.2012, to the accused / 2nd respondent herein. The de facto complainant is the petitioner before this Court.

This is 2nd petition for cancellation of bail and the 1st petition in Crl.O.P. No.18095 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court on 31.07.2012 by passing the following order.

"This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.no.1308 of 2012. In the light of the above discussions, this petition is dismissed. The Investigating Officer is directed to expedite the investigation and file a final report as expeditiously as possible."

Pursuant to the orders of this Court, investigation has been completed and final report in C.C. No.1 of 2014 has been filed by the Police against the 2nd respondent / accused.

According to the petitioner / de facto complainant, the 2nd respondent / accused is a Real Estate Agent and he had sold the property to the petitioner / de facto complainant in the year 1989. In 2010, when she went to her property, she found that someone else had constructed a building in the said land. She made an enquiry and learnt that the 2nd respondent / accused had sold the same land to one Annie in the year 1997, who in turn sold the land to one Babu. Based on the complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No. 344 of 2012 and the 2nd respondent / accused was arrested by Police on 27.05.2012 and he was granted bail by the Sessions Court on 15.06.2012.

The petitioner / de facto complainant has stated in the petition that this is the 2nd petition for cancellation of bail and the reason for seeking cancellation is that investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed.

It is not his case that 2nd respondent / accused is absconding or has not submitted to undergo due process of law and that he is tampering with the evidence. The main witness in this case is the de facto complainant / petitioner and she is giving evidence against the 2nd respondent / accused in the Trial Court. There is no supervening circumstances warranting interference by this Court to cancel the bail that was granted to the 2nd respondent / accused way back in the year 2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, , wherein parameters for granting bail has been enumerated.

I have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said judgment and at the same time, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that parameters for the grant of bail is one thing and the parameters for cancellation of the same is different. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the Sessions Court granting bail does not suffer from any infirmity or impropriety. Further, this Court on earlier occasion had dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail. Under such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner / de facto complainant to once again file a petition for cancellation of bail in the absence of any supervening circumstances, like attempt by the accused to tamper with the evidence or some such thing.

In the result, this Court is not inclined to cancel the bail and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.