Smt. Tasneem vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8757 MP

                                     1

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
      MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.6066 OF 2022
     (Smt. Tasneem & Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another)

Indore, Dated 01.07.2022
     Mr. Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Ayushyaman Chaudhary, counsel for the applicants.
      Mr. Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the non-applicant
No.1/State.
      None for the non-applicant No.2.
      Arguments heard. Perused the case diary.
                               ORDER

The applicants have filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.PC') for cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant No.2 vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District- Alirajpur (MP) in bail application No.116/2021.

As per prosecution story, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 102-B and 506 of IPC has been registered against the non- applicant No.2 in connection with crime no.570/2021 at Police- Station-Jobat, Districrt - Alirajpur. It is alleged that non-applicant No.2 along with other accused persons have committed fraud with the applicants and on the basis of false and fabricated documents, they have obtained the money and golden ornaments worth Rs.72,91,000/- from the present applicants.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that non- applicant No.2 has been enlarged on bail vide order 10.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jobat, District-Alirajpur. The

bail order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and the offence is very heinous in nature and therefore the non-applicant No.2 does not deserves the grant of bail. It is also contended by senior counsel that non-applicant No.2 had threatened and abused the present applicants after released on bail and therefore in this regard a complaint was lodged on 26.12.2021 by the applicants against the non-applicant No.2 because he is pressurizing the applicants for compromise, therefore the bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, is liable to be cancelled.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.1/State also started complaining by submitting that the present applicants along with non-applicant No.2 - Kirtish abused the complainant and threatened him to kill and pressurized him to withdraw his refute. Accordingly enquriy is going on and complaint is still pending. He further contended that total two criminal antecedents have been found against the non-applicant No.2.

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the non-applicant No.2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

Verification report of the non-applicant No.2 was called for and from the report of Station House Officer (SHO), Jobat, District- Alirajpur, it is clear that non-applicant No.2 along with other accused persons are pressurizing the applicants for compromise and he also threatened them to kill. It appears that two criminal antecedents have been found against the non-applicant No.2 which includes offence under Sections 353, 186, 332/34 of IPC also.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants have placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana and Another, order dated 04.10.2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.5404-5405/2021 in which it has been observed as under:

9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well settled legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that 'cogent and overwhelming reasons' are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana observed that:

"Rejection of 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 granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) 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 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 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."

These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in X vs. State of Telangana.

10. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has

considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puran Vs. Ramvilas reported in AIR 2001 SC 2023 has held that as the High Court is superior Court in hierarchy of the Courts, it can exercise powers under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to cancel the bail granted by the Sessions Court.

In light of the aforesaid discussion and without expressing any opinion on merit, the bail order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions, Jobat, District - Alirajpur (MP) in respect of non-applicant No.2 is hereby cancelled and direct him to surrender before the trial Court within a period of two weeks. It is also made clear that after surrendering of non-applicant No.2, he will be free to seek regular bail from the concerned trial Court and any such prayer made by non-applicant No.2 shall be decided by the trial Court without being influenced by this order. Accordingly this application is being allowed.

                                                                (ANIL VERMA)
 Arun/-                                                           JUDGE

Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
Date: 2022.07.04 13:01:34
+05'30'