Anil Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 2571 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anil Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr.M.P. No.3217 of 2022
                                      ------

    Anil Kumar Agarwal                       ...  Petitioner
                                      Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand
    2. Arun Agarwala @ Arun Kumar Bakrewalla
                                             ... Opposite Parties
                               ------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                   ------
      For the Petitioner     : Mr. D. K. Prasad, Advocate
      For the State          : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
      For the O.P. No.2      : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate
                                    ------
     Order No:-12 Dated:-01-03-2024
           Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021 in connection with C/1 Case No.1032 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party No.2 was given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the trial court in terms of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021 in connection with C/1 Case No.1032 of 2017 on the following conditions:-

(i) he will cooperate with the trial of the case

(ii) he will not go to the portion of the factory namely M/s. Metal Seals Industries and Nutech Chemicals Limited during the pendency of the case and he will not cause any hindrance to the complainant or any of his agents or authorized persons to enter the portion of the said two industries during the pendency of the case.

4. The opposite party No.2 filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7109 of 2021 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia contending in the petition that this Court has erroneously recorded in the said order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021 that the counsel of the opposite party No.2 had submitted that the opposite party No.2 would not go to the two factories in question during the pendency of the case and the counsel of the opposite party No.2 had not made any such statement in any event. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 28.09.2021, permitted the opposite party No.2 to withdraw the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) as the opposite party No.2 of this case wanted to approach the High Court for appropriate modification of the impugned said order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the opposite party No.2 has never approached this Court but instead surrendered before the trial court and was released on bail on submitting the said undertaking in terms of the said order passed by this court vide order dated 15.07.2021 in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his family members on 03.08.2021 went to the factories namely M/s. Metal Seals Industries and Nutech Chemicals Limited which comes within the scope of the undertaking given by the opposite party No.2 while getting the privileges of anticipatory bail. The opposite party No.2 obstructed the petitioner in assessing the factories unit and also continued to usurp and be in illegal possession despite of categorical undertaking before this Court. The opposite party No.2 restricted the entry of the petitioner by use of criminal force along with his accomplishes and this act of opposite party No.2 amounted to violation of mandatory terms and conditions imposed upon him. The son of the petitioner namely Tushar Agarwal reported the matter to police and lodged an online complaint against the opposite party No.2 and his son as the police refused to accept the complaint of having failed to re-enter and access over the factory units as proprietor even though the opposite party No.2 has been enlarged on conditional bail. It is next submitted that consequent upon withdrawal of Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the opposite party No.2 has furnished his bail bond and an undertaking to the aforesaid effect on 28.09.2021 before the trial court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseem Bee & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed in that case that the High Court has committed a grave error in that case by allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit would be barred in view of Section 257 of the MPLRC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has inter alia observed that where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim and where the grant of bail was not appropriate in first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified, can also be cancelled.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari vs. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. By LRS. & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 wherein in a case of civil contempt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has inter alia held that apology tendered should not be accepted in the matter of course.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 in RE: Perry Kansagara ... Alleged Contemnor wherein in the facts of that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that a person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the order of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Singh & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in A.B.A. No.10546 of 2023 dated 05.01.2024 wherein this Court in the facts of that case refused to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail as petitioners did not abide by the conditions of anticipatory bail and they did not surrender before the learned trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021, be cancelled.

11. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the opposite party No.2 had no knowledge whether the petitioner and his family members had gone to the factory. It is next submitted that the opposite party No.2 has not violated any terms and conditions of the bail. Therefore, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021 ought not be cancelled.

12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; shows where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:-

(i)     by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii)    interfering with the course of investigation,

(iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses,

(iv) threaten 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.

13. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the opposite party No.2 as to on which date and on which time, the opposite party No.2 ever obstructed the entry of the petitioner to the factory premises. The allegations in this respect are vague and not specific. There is no material in the record to suggest that the opposite party No.2 ever entered inside the said factory premises after his submitting his undertaking in the trial court on 28.09.2021. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by the trial court in terms of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.275 of 2021.

14. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

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