Rajan Mahajan And Anr. vs State And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 91 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2002, passed by the court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, cancelling the bail of the petitioners in the case FIR No. 780/2001, under Sections 406/498-A, IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.

2. Prosecution allegation in brief are that younger brother of the petitioners, Sachin Mahajan, was married with Ms. Gunjan (respondent No. 2) on 19th November, 1999. In September, 2000, Gunjan and her husband, Sachin Mahajan, shifted to D-8/8077, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. They could not pull on even there. On account of differences above noted case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2 in which petitioners were also involved. Petitioners were arrested on 19th September, 2001. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the allegations of torture against the petitioners were vague and that there was no likelihood of their fleeing from justice and admitted them to bail, on each of them furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount. However, bail application of husband of complainant, Sachin Mahajan was declined. Thereafter vide order dated 18th January, 2002, taking into consideration the report of the police that petitioners failed to join investigation as well as report lodged by the complainant at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cancelled the bail of both the petitioners. This order is under challenge.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for State as well as learned counsel for complainant. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners argued that the petitioners were arrested during investigations, they were produced before the court, no police remand was sought and that they never refused to accept notice and that the same is manipulated. He argued that in any case petitioners have already participated in the investigation and that Respondent No. 2 and her husband had been living separately since September, 2001, so the question of petitioners' harassing the complainant did not arise; and that false report was lodged against the petitioners with a view to get their bail cancelled. It was argued that prior to the marriage of complainant, complainant was involved in the case under Sections 468/471/420 IPC on the allegations that she obtained admission in the College, on the basis of fabricated certificates and that after marriage when the complainant and her husband went for honeymoon at Singapore, she was caught on the allegations of stealing some articles from a famous store and was fined US $ 2000. It is thus argued that the allegations against the petitioners of alleged threats and refusal of notices are totally false.

4. In reply, learned counsel for complainant, Ms. Pinky Anand, did not contest involvement of the complainant in other cases and argued that these are totally irrelevant. She vehemently argued that articles of Istridhan worth Rs. 70,00,000/- are yet to be recovered; and that complainant was shifted to Vasant Kunj, Delhi with a well hatched plan to get rid of her. She argued that impugned order cancelling bail is legal, valid and in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for State, on instructions from Inspector, fairly conceded that petitioners are no longer required for investigation; and that the allegations contained in the report lodged by the complainant vide DD No. 56-B were not substantiated. He seeks to file affidavit of Mr. R.K. Ojha, SHO, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in support of his submission. Let the same be taken on record.

6. I have considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute that the petitioners after arrest were granted regular bail by the court concerned; they are residing at Anand Niketan and complainant/respondent No. 2 is residing somewhere at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. 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 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. Petitioners have already suffered police remand and were granted regular bail.

7. For the foregoing reasons, revision petition is allowed. Order dated 18th January, 2002 cancelling the bail is hereby set aside. The order granting bail to petitioners is hereby confirmed.

8. Petition stands disposed of.