Sangeeta vs State of Haryana

Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.—The petitioner is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to respondent No. 2 Vinod Kumar in FIR No. 161 dated 26.05.2015 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar.

Petitioner Sangeeta was married to respondent no.2 Vinod Kumar in April 2012 and the FIR was registered against the husband and his parents. The complainant had made allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. The trial Court allowed anticipatory bail to the husband on 01.04.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that anticipatory bail had been allowed to the petitioner even though recovery had not been effected, therefore, the bail should be cancelled. Reliance was placed upon Krishna Bhatacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury and another 2016 1 RCR(Civil) 151.

It is necessary to refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court i.e Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 SC 961 and Raghbir and another v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149, which deals with the grounds on which bail can be cancelled under Section 439(3) Cr. P. C. In Sanjay Gandhi''s (supra) case it was held that rejection of bail is one thing and cancellation of bail already granted is quite another.

Cancellation of bail necessarily involves review of a decision already made and can be permitted only if by reasons of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during trial.

In Raghbir Singh''s case (supra) it was held that the grounds for cancellation under Section 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled 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) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency and (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. It was held that rejection of bail stood on one footing but cancellation of bail was a harsh order as it interfered with liberty of the individual and could not be lightly resorted to.

There is nothing on record or mentioned by Investigating Officer to the Court to suggest that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation or had hampered in any way.

In my opinion, non recovery of the articles is not a valid ground for cancellation of bail. It is a matter of trial and it will have to be proved as to how much dowry was given and in whose custody the same were. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable.