Vassa @ Vasima vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Complainant-applicant has filed this bail application under Section 439 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2020 in F.I.R. No. 0015/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhiwadi, District Alwar (Police District Bhiwadi), for offences under Sections 376-D, 342 & 506 of IPC.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the bail came to be granted ignoring the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Relying on an interim order dated 06.02.2020, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.3423/2020, 'V' (Victim) versus State of Haryana and Others, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the accused-non-petitioner was involved in the offence and hence, the benefit of bail extended to him vide order dated 02.06.2020 by this Court deserves to be cancelled.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

A perusal of the order dated 02.06.2020 reveals that the accused-non-petitioner was extended benefit of bail by this Court considering the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the applicant to submit that the benefit of bail came to be extended ignoring the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The interim order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana does not reveal any material to support the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant warranting cancellation of benefit of bail to the accused-non-petitioner.

The parameters for cancellation of bail, have succinctly been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Versus Subramani Gopalakrihnan and Another, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 296, wherein it was held as under:-

"23.It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

We have already pointed out that the issue before us is not for cancellation of bail granted earlier, the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the magnitude of the scam, the bail granted in favour of all the main accused have been cancelled and the Respondents A-4 and A-10 being external and internal auditors respectively, their role being paramount in inflating processing assets and bank balances of M/s SCSL, we are of the view that the High Court is not justified in granting bail."

In another judgment in case of Kanwar Singh Meena Versus State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2012) 12 SCC 180, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well- recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail."

Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any such illegality or perversity in the order extending benefit of bail to the accused-non-petitioner warranting its cancellation.

I find no merit in the application seeking cancellation of bail.

Resultantly, the same is dismissed.