Smt. Sonika Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1747 MP

                                                        1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                     MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11305 of 2020

                               Between:-
                               SMT. SONIKA SINGH W/O VIPIN KUMAR
                               OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O E-8/50 AKASH
                               GANGA COLONY SAHPURA, BHOPAL, DISTT.
                               BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....APPLICANT
                               (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

                      1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               P.S. M.P. NAGAR BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL,
                               M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.       VIPIN KUMAR SINGH S/O BRIJPAL SINGH ,
                               AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, E-8 /208 BHARAT
                               NAGAR    SAHPURA  BHOPAL     (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                      3.       BRIJPAL SINGH S/O LATE JEET SINGH , AGED
                               ABOUT 63 YEARS, E-8 /208 BHARAT NAGAR
                               SAHPURA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI PUSPENDRA VERMA, PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)
                               (BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR TIWARI, RESPONDENT NO.2)
                                           (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                             This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
                      the following:
                                                         ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in favour of private respondents No.2 and 3 vide order dated 31.01.2020 invoking its jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The main ground to seek cancellation of bail is that the present applicant is wife of respondent No.2 (Vipin Kumar Singh), they have two children from marriage. There are allegations of illicit relationship between respondent No.2 and another lady resulting in torture of the present applicant.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Date: 2022.02.10
19:20:29 IST

Present applicant is residing separately with her parents.

It is submitted that the present applicant was appointed as Director in an Electrical Company where respondent No.2 is Managing Director and respondent No.3 is Director. She has been illegally removed from the post of Directorship and they are not cooperating with the investigation and seizure of the original documents including disputed resignation letter of the complainant

and the record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors. On such grounds cancellation of bail is sought.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012(12) SCC 180 and submits that this is a good case to cancel the bail granted to the accused persons.

Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as far as letter of resignation and proceedings of Board of Director is concerned that is already part of official record and can be collected by the I.O. at any point of time. It is submitted that there is difference in not granting the bail and resorting to cancellation of bail. Offences alleged are under Section 420, 468 read with 34 of IPC.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that there no allegations of tampering with the evidence after private respondents were enlarged on bail or of threatening the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ms. X Vs. The State of Telangana, (AIR) 2018 SC 2466 wherein it is held in para 12 reads as under :-

"12. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana observed that:

"Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already g r a n t e d . Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession

granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is y e t 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."

These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh:

"It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order

directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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."

In reading of para 12 which has profitably quoted earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC, 349, it is evident that yardsticks for cancellation of bail and rejection of bail are different. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail, already granted. There should be satisfaction of the Court that there exist supervening circumstances which may interfere with the fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom.

In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mubin and Ors (2011)SCC Online Raj 2683), Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that merely lodging of FIR does not amount to commission of offence. It is only accusation/allegation. An accused can be said to have committed an offence only when a Court, after considering the material before it and hearing the parties, forms an opinion to that effect, at the time of framing of charge.

While deciding so Rajasthan High Court has considered the meaning and import of word 'commit' which according to Jhonson Dictionary means "to be guilty of a crime". Thus it is held that unless someone is guilty of a crime, provisions contained in 439(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked seeking cancellation of bail already granted in their favour.

In the present case none of these circumstances have been brought on record and merely filing a complaint making general and omnibus allegations against the applicant are not sufficient to constitute reasons for cancellation of bail already granted in favour of the respondents. Therefore, application fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish