Shanti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner with a prayer for modification of the order dated 14.09.2016, passed in A.B.A. No. 3291 of 2016 to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the opposite party nos.2 to 4 of this case, admitted the occupancy rights of the petitioner in Deoghar P.S. Case No.238 of 2005 registered under Sections 341/323/379/448 of I.P.C.. It is next submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the opposite party nos.2 to 4 on bail after taking note of the fact that the disputed house and land belongs to the husband of the opposite party no.2 of this case (who was the petitioner no.1 of A.B.A. no.3291 of 2016) and father of the opposite party no.3 (who was the petitioner no.2 of A.B.A. no.3291 of 2016) and he had not executed any gift deed in favour of the petitioner herein (informant of A.B.A. no.3291 of 2016) and subsequently a proceeding was going on under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the parties for same piece of land. It is next submitted that the opposite party nos.2 to 4 have suppressed the material fact before the coordinate Bench, about the earlier case and on the basis of misrepresentation of facts and misguiding and practicing fraud upon the court by the opposite party nos.2 to 4, resulted in releasing them in the said anticipatory bail being granted in their favour. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat reported in (2008) 13 SCC 854, paragraph 18 of which reads as under:-

"18. As is evident from the rival stands, one thing is clear that the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. There is no dispute to this position. But the question is if the trial court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials or takes into account irrelevant materials whether bail can be cancelled. Though it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the aspects to be dealt with while considering the application for cancellation of bail and on appeal against the grant of bail, it was fairly accepted that there is no scope for filing an appeal against the order of grant of bail. Under the scheme of the Code the application for cancellation of bail can be filed before the Court granting the bail if it is a Court of Session or the High Court."

and as there is no justifiable ground to grant bail to the opposite party ns. 2 to 4, hence the bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 to 4 be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for cancellation of bail and submitted that there is no allegation of any supervening circumstances or of misconduct on the part of opposite party nos.2 to 4 consequent upon the bail being granted to them and there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail. Hence, the prayer for cancel the bail of the opposite party nos.2 to 4 be rejected and this petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the record, it is crystal clear that there is no supervening circumstance in this case for cancellation of bail in this case as there is no allegation that after being granted bail any of the Opposite party no. 2 to 4 indulge in interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to them nor there is any allegation of intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. or going underground or otherwise placing themselves beyond the reach of the sureties . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 has as under in paragraph -22 "XxxxxxxxxxxxxGenerally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts. Xxxxxxxxx"

The cancellation of bail on the ground of granting bail upon irrelevant materials or taking into account the irrelevant material can be considered by a superior court and not by the same court. Thus in the absence of any supervening circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted in terms of the order dated 14.09.2016, passed in A.B.A. No. 3291 of 2016 is to be cancelled.

Accordingly, this petition being without any merit is dismissed.