Sakshi Goswami vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2683 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No.1399 of 2021
                              ------

    Sakshi Goswami                   ...  .... .... Petitioner
                              Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand
    2. Vikash Goshwami @ Vikash Kumar Goshwami
                                     .... .... .... Opposite Parties
                              ------
CORAM      : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      ------
     For the Petitioner         : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
     For the State              : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Addl.P.P
     For the O.P. No.2          : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
                                       ------
       Order No.05 Dated- 15/07/2022
           Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are minor in nature. Hence, the same be ignored.

Considering the fact that the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are minor in nature, the same are ignored for the present.

This criminal miscellaneous has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 in connection with Complaint Case No.2664 of 2017 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No.2 was given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the trial court in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 inter alia on the condition that the opposite party No.2 will send the articles like clothes, one trunk, one trolley bag, utensils and mixer to the petitioner through courier. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 has violated the condition of bail by not returning articles like clothes, one trunk, one trolley bag, utensils and mixer which belong to the petitioner. It is then submitted that the opposite party No.2 very cleverly and in a fraudulent manner only sent the blank trunk without any articles including jewelry therein and as per the condition in the agreement between the parties, the opposite party No.2 was duty bound to return the entire articles. It is then submitted that another condition of bail was that the opposite party No.2 has to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as full and final settlement but he has paid only Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, it is submitted that the opposite party No.2 is not complying with the terms and conditions of the said order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018. Hence, is submitted that the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 be cancelled.

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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)

It is next submitted that the allegation against the opposite party No.2 of not complying with the terms of anticipatory bail in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 is out and out false. It is further submitted that the opposite party No2 has already returned the articles like clothes, one trunk, one trolley bag, utensils and mixer to the petitioner and the same have been received by the petitioner. It is further submitted that after withdrawal of the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner, she was requested by the opposite party No.2 to file a decree of divorce by mutual consent but the petitioner has not been turning up. It is next submitted that handing over the aforesaid articles was never a condition of bail and the only condition of bail was to deposit a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn in favour of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 has already done the same after extension of time was granted by this court to the opposite party no.2 upon filing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any, merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petition filed by the petitioner is a misconceived one as nowhere in the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 it has been mentioned that the opposite party No.2 has to hand over the articles to the petitioner. The only condition of bail was that the opposite party No.2 has to deposit a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn in favour of the petitioner and the same has already been deposited by the opposite party No.2. 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 No.2 has violated any of the conditions of bail or have done anything to show that the opposite party No.2 has misused his 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 No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4055 of 2018 be cancelled.

Accordingly, this petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Animesh/