Shiv Mohan Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Y.K. Sangal, J.—These are two separate applications for cancellation of the bail, moved by the informant of the case Shiv Mohan Gupta in Case Crime No. 117 of 2005 relating to Session Trial No. 483 of 2006, under Sections 304B, 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jhunsi, district Allahabad. Bail was granted to two accused Heera Lal Gupta and Rajesh Gupta who are sasur and husband of the deceased, under the order of Sessions Judge and this Court vide order dated 4.8.2005 and 10.4.2006 respectively.

An F.I.R. was lodged against the Respondent No. 2 of both cases and others with the averments that for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, they have committed dowry death of sister of the informant. Poison was administered to her by the family members of the Respondent No. 2 of cases. Police started investigation in the matter and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons.

Informant of the case, Sheo Mohan Gupta filed applications for cancellation of their bail with the averments that they both begin to give tamper to the applicant and other witnesses of the criminal case and making pressure upon them to withdraw the criminal case. Respondent No. 2 (husband) lodged number of cases against the applicants and his family members. Application u/s 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was moved and a writ petition of habeas corpus was filed before this Court. An application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed involving the applicant and his father and another case under Sections 504 and 427, I.P.C. Trial court was informed about these misdeeds of the Respondents but trial court shown its inability saying that they are already on bail by this Court. On 1.2.2007 when father of the applicant was going to attend the date in the Court suddenly by motor cycle, Rajesh Gupta and two other unknown persons came there and given ultimatum either to compromise in the matter or to withdraw the criminal case. Again on 5.2.2007 when the father of the applicant was going to attend the date in the trial court, on the point of country made pistol, he was threatened for the same. As the accused persons are on bail, it will not be safe and for security of the informant and his father to keep them on bail and therefore prayed, their bail liberty be cancelled.

Counter and rejoinder-affidavits in both the cases were exchanged.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

As both the cases relate to the same crime number, hence the same are being taken simultaneously.

Shri B.L. Gupta is father of the informant and deceased both. It is undisputed fact that he is a practising advocate in civil court, Allahabad.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 Rajesh had argued that it is very easy for Shri Gupta to manipulate such type of application for cancellation of bail with his resources. All the facts relating to alleged misuse of liberty of bail by the accused persons, narrated in both the applications relates to the occurrences said to have taken place in the year, 2007. Now it is 2010. In between the year, 2008 to 2010, learned Counsel for the applicant had failed to show anything on record that the accused persons did anything which would warrant the cancellation of bail by this Court. It was further argued on behalf of the Respondents that it appears that the applicant and his father who is a practising advocate were aggrieved of the orders passed by the Session Judge and this Court granting bail. They thus wanted the cancellation of the bail only on this cause that how they are roaming freely, although criminal case is pending against them.

It was further argued that from the record, it also reveals that applicant was also having annoyance, on this ground that Rajesh Gupta was not suspended by the department in spite of the fact that he remained in jail for long period in this case and his father Heera Lal who is a retired Government servant still getting pension, although, he is involved in the present case. It was pressed that bail granted to Heera Lal by the Session Judge order, do not smack of arbitrariness and impropriety. This Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction for cancellation of bail unless there are supervening circumstances to show that it would be no longer conducive to a fare trial to allow them for this freedom.

Although, it was argued that both the Respondents are causing delay in disposal of the case before the trial court but copy of the order-sheet of the trial court has not been filed to show, how applicant attribute to the accused that they are causing delay in disposal of the matter in the trial court.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 argued that an application u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on behalf of the applicant, the same was decided by the trial court. Against that order proceedings were initiated before this Court and under the order of this Court, further proceedings were stayed. Later on case against the accused persons who were summoned u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure was separately registered and in proceeding in case against the other accused persons, statement of two witnesses already recorded who are the informant of case and his father Brij Lal Gupta. Correctness of these facts not disputed by the counsel for the applicant. It was further argued that almost total evidence of the witnesses of fact are closed and now statement of formal witnesses are to be recorded. There is no delay on the part of the accused in the trial court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 further argued that to seek the custody of his children, an application was moved by the Respondent No. 2, husband Rajesh in the appropriate court and a petition of habeas corpus was moved before this Court. In that case, this Court had permitted him to meet with his son on every Monday and Wednesday. Learned Counsel further argued that as the applicant and his father were annoyed by such meeting of Rajesh with his son so only to pressurise, this application for cancellation of bail was moved.

Thrice on behalf of the applicant and by his father in the year, 2007 applications were moved to authorities about the alleged act of tamper by the accused to the witnesses and the informant. During that period on behalf of the accused also two cases were lodged against the applicant. One case was registered on the application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused persons were summoned to face trial in other case of marpeet. This shows that both the parties have lodged cases against each other during the period of the year, 2007. But thereafter no such act of accused-Respondents is shown by the applicant that now the bail of the accused persons should be cancelled in the year, 2010.

It is established law that for granting the bail and cancelling bail already granted, there are different criteria. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for order directing cancellation of the bail already granted. Generally, speaking the grounds for cancelling the bail are that interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice and evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice and abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner and satisfaction of Court that accused may flee from the justice, which are not established in the present case.

From the above all discussions, it is clear that no sufficient ground and circumstances brought on record on behalf of the applicant for cancellation of the bail already granted to both the Respondent No. 2 of both the cases.

Applications have no force and are accordingly, hereby dismissed.

Copy of this order be placed on record of the another connected case, i.e., Crl. Bail (Cancellation) Application No. 9220 of 2007.