Delhi High Court
Tagan Nath Sharma vs State And Ors. on 24 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997 VIAD Delhi 343, 69 (1997) DLT 443, II (1997) DMC 557
Author: J Singh
Bench: J Singh
JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The respondents are the parents-in-law of the deceased Kavita Sharma. They were arrested in a case registered under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage because other having been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the respondents. The petitioner, who is the father of the deceased has applied for cancellation of their bail.
(2) While allowing an application for bail, the Court takes note of the nature of the crime, circumstances in which it was committed, the age and background of the accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the possibility of his tampering with the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the respondents had dean past. Admittedly also, they are old. It was at no stage suggested that their release was likely to have an adverse impact on the prosecution witnesses. What is more at no stage had the State taken the stand that the respondents were likely to jump bail. It must also be taken note of that the State has not felt aggrieved by the orders of bail.
(3) It was observed by the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, : "REJECTION of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of a bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a nonbailable case than to cancel a bail once granted. 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 to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial."
It was further observed: "PROVING by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused had abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail."
(4) In Bhagirathsitth Judeja v. State of Gujarat, , it was observed that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. The power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection.
(5) In the case in hand the learned Additional Sessions Judge -has passed discretionary orders. The State has felt content with those orders. It is true that the offences of which the petitioners are charged with are very serious but then this provides no ground for cancellation of bail. No circumstance so over-riding as to permit interference with the discretionary order has been brought to my notice. The respondents are not shown to have abused their liberty. It is not argued that they have tampered with or attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence or to interfere with the course of justice.
(6) For the reasons recorded above, I find no ground to cancel the bail orders. The petition is consequently dismissed.
