Pramila Das vs Harinarayan Pratihari and Another

P.K. Patra, J.—This is an application u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC) praying for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. I - Harinarayan Pratihari, by this Court vide order dated 5.8.1999 in Cri.M.C.No. 3562/99 in connection with G.R. Case No. 745 of 1999 arising out of Sea Beach P.S. Case No. 86 of 1999 pending before the S.D.J.M., Puri. The offences alleged against opp. party No. 1 in that case are u/s 342/376, IPC and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 13.6.1999.

It is alleged by the petitioner that after being released on bail, opposite party No.l is misutilising the liberty granted to him and that during the Puja holidays of 1999 and also on 15.11.1999 opposite party No. 1 threatened her not to depose against him in the aforesaid G.R. Case and also assaulted her. Again on 20.1.1999 at 8 p.m., opposite party No. l forcibly entered inside the house of the petitioner and threatened her to withdraw the case and on her refusal, committed rape on her which fact was reported at the Puri Sea Beach P.S. and P.S. Case No. 149 dated 21.11.1999 u/s 376, IPC was registered, but as yet opposite party No. l has not been arrested in that case.

Opposite party No. l has filed his objection denying the allegations of the petitioner and adding that the petitioner has falsely implicated him in the first case with a view to harass him at the instance of his adversaries, in which case he has been granted bail. After his release on bail, the petitioner again lodged another FIR against him at the Sea Beach P.S. and P.S. Case No. 148 dated 21.11.1999 has been registered against him u/s 376, IPC. Then again the petitioner lodged another FIR against the opposite party No. l Under Sections 341/323/354, IPC and Sea Beach P.S. Case No. 110 dated 11.9.2000 has been registered against opposite party No.l and all cases are false. It is stated that opposite party No. l has never misutilised the liberty granted to him by way of threatening the petitioner or her witnesses.

Mr. B Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K.Ray, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party No. 2 were heard at length. While Mr. Rath contended that it is a fit case for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 1, Mr. Ray vehemently opposed the same. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that no report has been received by the authorities as to misutilisation of the liberty granted to opposite party No. l.

It is not alleged by the petitioner that bail has been granted to opposite party No. l illegally or arbitrarily, or by wrong or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. There is also no allegation that opposite party No. 1 terrorised the witnesses in that case. In the second and third cases initiated against to opposite party No. 1 by the petitioner, no action appears to have been taken as yet since opposite party No. 1 is found to be at large. In the first case, the petitioner filed an affidavit and also made statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate to the effect that she had falsely lodged the FIR against the petitioner at the instance of others. Subsequently, after release of the petitioner on bail she filed another affidavit stating that the earlier affidavit and the statement in Court had been made by her at the threat and coercion of opposite party No. 1 and thus she has been changing her mind from time to time without bringing the allegations against opposite party No. l to the notice of police. If at all opposite party No. l is found to be involved in the second and third cases, the investigating officer will take appropriate action as per law.

In the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sanjay Gandhi, it has been held as follows :

"Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, .it would be no longer conducive for a trial, to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial."

Keeping in view the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court, and on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be expedient to cancel the bail granted to opposite party No. 1. Accordingly the petition is found ''to be devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected.

In the result, the prayer for cancellation of bail u/s 439(2), Cr.P.C. stands rejected.