Smt. Gunjan Mahajan vs State And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 90 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 in the case FIR No. 780/2001, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh.

2. Prosecution allegations in brief are that petitioner was married to Sachin Mahajan, respondent No. 2, on 19th January, 1999. In September, 2000, they started living in a separate flat at Vasant Kunj. However, on account of some differences, they could not pull on together and on the basis of report lodged by petitioner, above-noted case was registered against respondent No. 2 and his other relations. Respondent No. 2 was arrested and some articles of Istridhan were recovered. Thereafter he was sent to judicial custody. By orders dated 22nd September, 2001, respondent No. 2 was released on bail by the Addl.Sessions Judge observing that petitioner was no longer required for investigation. This order has been challenged by the complainant.

3. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that articles of Istridhan worth more than Rs. 70.00 lacs are yet to be recovered. Respondent No. 2 shifted to a separate residence at Vasant Kunj with an intent to get rid of the petitioner. She argued that the complainant and her family members are being threatened regularly and in this connection a report vide DD No. 56-B was lodged at P.S. Punjabi Bagh. It is thus argued that respondent No. 2 has abused the discretion of bail granted to him by tampering with the evidence. Therefore, his bail is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned APP for State argued to the contrary.

4. There is no dispute that respondent No. 2 after suffering police remand as well as judicial remand was granted regular bail by the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi. It is also not in dispute that respondent No. 2 and petitioner were living separately at Vasant Kunj flat at the time of incident. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that prior to the marriage, the complainant was involved in another case under Sections 468/471/420 IPC on the allegations that she obtained admission in the college on the basis of fabricated certificates. He further argued that after marriage petitioner and respondent No. 2 went for honeymoon to Singapore, where she was caught on the allegations of stealing some articles from a famous store and has fined. Learned counsel for petitioner in reply did not contest her previous involvement but argued that petitioner was falsely involved in those cases. Learned APP for State has very fairly conceded that respondent No. 2 is no longer required for the purposes of investigation and that the allegations in the report lodged by the complainant vide DD No. 56-B were not substantiated. He seeks to file in Court an affidavit of Mr. R.K. Ojha, SHO, Punjabi Bagh in support of his submission. Let the same be taken on record.

5. I have considered the rival contentions. As held by the Supreme Court in Bhagirathsingh v. State of Gujarat , very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favor by tampering with evidence. In this case, as noticed above, the allegations contained in the report lodged by the complainant at P.S. Punjabi Bagh have not been substantiated. Bail cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that articles of Istridhan have not yet been recovered.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.