Karnataka High Court
Smt Rekha Singhal vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3835/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. REKHA SINGHAL
D/O. SRI T.C. GOYAL AND
W/O. SRI ARVIND SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
TOWER 5, FLAT NO.92
PEBBLE BAY APARTMENTS
RAMAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT
DOLLARS COLONY
R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BALASUBRAMANI V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU.
2. SHRI ARVIND SINGHAL
S/O. D.N. SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
36/3180A, NANDAN KUNJ
UDAYA NAGAR
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-682 017.
2
3. SHRI D.N. SINGHAL
S/O. CHIRANJEELAL SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
36/3180A, NANDAN KUNJ
UDAYA NAGAR
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-682 017.
4. SAVITA SINGHAL
W/O. D.N. SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
36/3180A, NANDAN KUNJ
UDAYA NAGAR
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-682 017.
5. VIKAS SINGHAL
S/O. D.N. SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
36/3180A, NANDAN KUNJ
UDAYA NAGAR
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-682 017.
6. VINAY SINGHAL
S/O. D.N. SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
36/3180A, NANDAN KUNJ
UDAYA NAGAR
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-682 017.
7. EKTHA GAYAL
W/O. SUNIL GOYAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
36/3180A, NANDAN KUNJ
UDAYA NAGAR
3
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
KERALA-682 017. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S. SRIRANGA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND
FOR R2 TO R7)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06.05.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.4211/2021 AND
CRL.MISC.NO.4212/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF
LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-72).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
'THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the
respondent Nos.2 to 7 in Crl.Misc.Nos.4211/2021 and 4212/2021
dated 06.05.2021 passed by the LXXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-
State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that, anticipatory bail is obtained
by the respondents by suppressing true facts. The counsel also
brought to the notice of this Court the affidavits filed by the son
and daughter of the petitioner, wherein they have stated that
there is a threat to them and brought to the notice of this Court
paragraph Nos.12, 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed by her son and
paragraph No.13 of the affidavit filed by her daughter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also
submit that, in the operative portion of the order passed by the
Trial Court in condition No.3, it is specifically mentioned that "the
petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the concerned I.O". In spite of such specific direction
was given, the respondents are repeatedly making phone call
and causing threat to the complainant as well as her children.
Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section
439(2) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in
support of his argument, brought to the notice of this Court the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DALIP SINGH VS.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114 and
brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.10, wherein the
Apex Court has observed that the party must come with clean
hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without
concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate
relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material
facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his
petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering
the merits of the claim.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.2 to 7 would submit that the Trial Court, after
considering the gravity of the offence and also the allegation
made in the complaint, rightly granted the anticipatory bail in
favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 and subsequently, the same
is also modified extending the time due to Covid-19 Pandemic
reasons and all the formalities were completed in the month of
July, 2021 itself. The counsel also submits that the police have
investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. While filing
the charge-sheet, also invoked the offence under Sections 498-A
and 506 of IPC though several other offences are invoked in the
FIR. The counsel would also vehemently contend that detailed
statement of objections is filed countering the several allegations
made in the petition.
7. The counsel would further submit that the
respondents have not violated any conditions imposed by the
Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail. The affidavits filed
by the daughter and son is only at the instance of the
complainant. There is no material on record to evidence the fact
of causing threat and no such document is placed before the
Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2
to 7 also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS VS.
STATE OF HARYANA reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, wherein
the Apex Court has held that cancellation of bail already granted,
have to be dealt with on different basis and not like granting
bail.
9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of HAZARI LAL DAS VS. STATE OF
WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 10 SCC
652.
10. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of RAMCHARAN VS. STATE OF M.P. reported in
(2004) 13 SCC 617.
11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of MAHANT CHAND NATH YOGI AND ANOTHER
VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2003) 1 SCC 326.
12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in 1993 CRI L.J. 251.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7,
referring these judgments would vehemently contend that the
cancellation of bail is a serious matter and it affects the personal
liberty of a person and the same cannot be exercised, unless
strong material for such cancellation is placed before the Court.
14. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record i.e., the pleadings in
the petition and also the statement of objections, particularly the
FIR, it is seen that, at the first instance, the case was registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 403, 405, 415,
463, 420, 319, 351 and 120(A) of IPC. Admittedly, the police
have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet invoking
the offence under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.
15. The Court, while canceling the bail has to keep two
aspects in mind i.e., one with regard to obtaining bail order
suppressing the material facts and if the Trial Court passes an
capricious or perverse order, then, the Court can invoke Section
439(2) of Cr.P.C. and another is that, if accused violates any of
the conditions imposed in the order passed while granting bail.
Under such circumstances, the Court can invoke Section 439(2)
of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail.
16. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that, by
suppressing the material facts, the respondents have obtained
the anticipatory bail. I have already pointed out that the
offences which have been invoked against the respondents
herein particularly, Section 498-A of IPC is with regard to
matrimonial dispute and Section 420 of IPC is with regard to the
transaction which has taken place between the parties during the
marital life of the petitioner and her husband.
17. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that this Court did
not exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the
relief was sought for quashing the complaint registered against
the respondents herein, while considering the petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has come to the conclusion
that matter has to be probed by the Investigating Officer
regarding the allegations made in the complaint and it is not a fit
case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, it is observed
therein that, prima facie, the allegations made in the complaint
has to be probed by the Investigating Officer and hence, did not
invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be a ground
for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Trial
Court.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly brought
to the notice of this Court the observation made by this Court in
the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, it is
important to note that the scope of Section 482 and 438 of
Cr.P.C. are different. This Court has to look into the order
passed by the learned Judge in Crl.Misc.Nos.4211/2021 and
4212/2021, wherein the Trial Court has come to the conclusion
that, having considered the material on record, particularly the
averments of the complaint, at this stage, there is no strong
ground, so as to deny anticipatory bail to the respondents.
While granting anticipatory bail, the Court has to take note of
the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the
complaint. The Trial Court also, while considering the matter on
merits, particularly in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 has observed that
it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
for granting anticipatory bail. When such reasons are given by
the Trial Court, while considering the scope of Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., I have already pointed out that the Court has to take
note of the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the
complaint should be the criteria for exercising such discretion.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the
respondents have suppressed the material fact, the suppression
of said material is not placed before the Court and also not
brought before the Court and hence, the question of Dalip's
case (supra) is applicable cannot be accepted. Therefore, I do
not find any error committed by the Trial Court while granting
anticipatory bail exercising the powers under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C.
19. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, condition No.3 of the order passed by the Trial
Court is violated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, even after granting anticipatory bail, the respondents are
making phone calls and threatening the petitioner. In order to
substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court,
except the affidavits. However, only an allegation is made
against the respondents that they are making phone call and
threatening her. No doubt, the son and daughter of the
complainant have filed separate affidavits stating that there is a
threat, no specific instances are stated and only an omnibus
statement is made in the affidavits.
20. When such being the facts and circumstances of the
case and there is no material on record to substantiate the fact
that the respondents have violated the condition imposed by the
Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail, hence, it is not a fit
case to exercise the discretion under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
for cancellation of bail. It appears that the proceedings initiated
by the petitioner is nothing but a luxury and without any cogent
reason, the petitioner has approached this Court and both the
petitioner and the respondents are making allegations against
each other in a petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
which is unwarranted and the same amounts to an abuse of
process.
21. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
