Jharkhand High Court
Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021
------
Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand ... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Sanjay Sharma
3. Puja Kumari @ Puja Kumari @ Puja Kimari @ Puja Kumari Sharma
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P
For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
------
Order No.05 Dated- 01/04/2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
This criminal miscellaneous has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to
cancel the bail granted to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 in terms of the order dated
05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party Nos.2 & 3
were given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the trial court in terms of the
order dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020 on the ground that a
compromise has been entered into between the parties. It is next submitted that
the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 are not complying the terms of the said order dated
05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020. Hence, is submitted that the bail
granted to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 by the trial court in terms of the order
dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020 be cancelled.
Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned
counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 vehemently oppose the prayer to cancel
the bail granted to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 by the trial court in terms of the
order dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020. Learned counsel for the
opposite party Nos.2 & 3 relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 SCC OnLine
SC 123 paragraphs-4 & 5 of which read as under:-
4. "The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the
tenant from the premises of which the respondent is the owner. Previously, there was a
compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay
certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time stipulated. On the
allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise by not
vacating the premises in question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of
bail was filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that neither was any
averment made in the petition about misuse of liberty granted to the appellant nor was any
difficulty alleged to have been faced by the prosecution in the case on the ground of the
appellant being at large.
5. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground
that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground
on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly
untenable. It is our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process
of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed
by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said
order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed." (Emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 next relies upon the order
of this Court passed in the case of Akhileshwar Prasad Vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another in Cr.M.P. No.3851 of 2019 and submits that it is a settled
principle of law that bail cannot be cancelled on the ground that the accused has
not vacated the tenanted premises in terms of the compromise. It is next submitted
that the allegation against the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 of not complying with the
terms of anticipatory bail in terms of the order dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A.
No.1907 of 2020 is false and the allegation that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are
not complying the terms of the order dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of
2020 is also false as the said opposite parties have already vacated the premises in
terms of the agreement and the possession has also been handed over to the
petitioner as is evident from the photographs of the premises, the copy of which
has been kept at page-7 of the counter-affidavit. Hence, it is submitted that the bail
granted to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 by the trial court in terms of the order
dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020 ought not to be cancelled.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and carefully going through
the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention that very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation
of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of
bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are :
i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of
justice or;
ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or;
iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.
iv) the satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of
the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail.
However, 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.
After carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has failed to show that the opposite party
Nos.2 & 3 have violated any of the conditions of bail or have done anything to
show that the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 have misused their liberty
(i) by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interfered with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threatened witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper
smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country,
(vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming
unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail
granted to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 by the trial court in terms of the order
dated 05.06.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.1907 of 2020 be cancelled.
Accordingly, this petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AFR-Animesh/
