Rajvir Sorot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11596 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                                                 ON THE 25 th OF JULY, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16211 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAJVIR SOROT S/O GOKAL RAM, AGED ABOUT 53
                          YEAR S , OCCUPATION: RETIRED ARMY MAN, R/O
                          VILLAGE & POST SONDHAD TEHSIL HODAL DISTRICT
                          PALWAL (HARYANA)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI KAMLAKAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                POLICE STATION ASHOKA GARDEN DISTRICT
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    ARUN AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI R.P. AGRAWAL,
                                AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
                                R/O A-10 A-SECTOR MANSAROVAR COLONY
                                SHAHPURA    DISTRICT   BHOPAL    (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI T.R. KURMI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
                          No.1/STATE.
                          SHRI KAPIL SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 )

                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

Arguments heard on the application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2.

2. It appears from the record that the Crime No.689/2021 was registered against the respondent No.2 at Police Station Ashoka Garden, District Bhopal Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 7/26/2023 2:12:56 PM

(M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 370, 370-A, 372, 373, 376, 506/34 of IPC and Section 5 & 6 of POCSO Act.

3. In the aforesaid crime, the respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.56075/2021 and applicant was granted anticipatory bail upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.40,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer in the event of arrest by the applicant (accused) therein.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after getting anticipatory bail by this Court, the respondent No.2 misused the liberty granted

to him. The applicant/complainant harassed by the accused/respondent No.2 because in the society there is more problems to perform the marriage with another person. The prima facie allegation levelled by the complaint has been found true because after getting bail the accused/respondent No.2 committed threatening and also disobeyed the order passed by this Hon'ble Court by committing pressure upon the applicant and his family members. It is further submitted that the applicant/complainant having responsibility of her daughter and family members who is having fear of the accused. The applicant/complainant being the father of prosecutrix belongs to a reputed family, the accused/respondent No.2 wants to defame the prosecutrix and it is a clear cut violation of the Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, hence on these grounds the order dated 17.11.2021 is liable to be recalled and this Hon'ble Court may cancel the anticipatory bail of the accused/respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the present application has been preferred by the applicant on the ground that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 7/26/2023 2:12:56 PM

respondent No.2 is threatening the prosecutrix and her family members to compromise in the matter, which is pending before the learned trial Court at Bhopal against which the applicant filed a complaint before SHO Hodal, District Palwal (Haryana). However on enquiry no evidence of any threatening or pressurizing the prosecutrix and her family members was found by the police and hence the matter was closed. It is further submitted that the present application is filed on frivolous grounds and to mislead this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has preferred a petition before this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, which is registered as M.Cr.C. No.8162/2023, in which I.A.No.4658/2023 was filed for bringing the affidavits of prosecutrix and her mother on record. In these two separate affidavits of prosecutrix and her mother, which were signed and verified by both of them individually it has been specifically stated by them that the prosecutrix did not know respondent No.2 nor she recognized him. It was also stated that respondent No.2 has not done any wrong nor committed rape on her. It was also stated by prosecutrix and her mother on affidavits that when the police complaint was filed by prosecutrix she was very angry and under rage and thus, in the FIR she gave the statement that on 18.08.2021 also rape was committed on her by respondent No.2, however she do not know him and beside taking interview of prosecutirx for a job nothing wrong was done by respondent No.2

to prosecutrix. Later, when prosecutrix informed to police about the innocence of respondent No.2 then the police forced and threatened prosecutrix to remain silent and state the same facts which have been noted down in FIR before the Court as well. The prosecutrix and her mother have also stated on affidavits that they did not want any innocent person to get punished for no fault of his due to

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 7/26/2023 2:12:56 PM

prosecutrix wrong statements under anger or due to police pressure. It is further submitted that later it was alleged that the above mentioned affidavits were not signed and verified by the prosecutrix and her mother, rather both the affidavits were alleged to be forged by respondent No.2. In view of this another application bearing I.A.No.5987/2023 was filed in M.Cr.C.No.8162/2023 for bringing on record the report of the finger print expert as per which the finger prints on the above mentioned affidavits of prosecutrix and her mother were of prosecutrix and her mother only. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the every statement on the above mentioned affidavits were made by the prosecutrix and her mother only and all the statements were in their knowledge as they have verified the same with their fingerprints. The present application is nothing but an attempt towards making money out of it by the prosecutrix and her family under the threat of maliciously prosecuting respondent No.2 for the offence of rape on the baseless, incorrect and misleading grounds with malafide intention, applicant is trying to mislead the Court and snatch money from the respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. X Vs. State of Telangana (2018 C.R.I.L.J 3070) has held that the Court must bear in mind that it is settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out. He also relied on the case of Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237, Bashir Vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 410 : 1977 SCC (Cri), Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511 and Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 956 has held that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 7/26/2023 2:12:56 PM

merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. The powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused. In a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order grant bail is not to be lightly interfered.

7. I have heard the submissions made by the counsel for parties and perused the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the applicant.

8. No doubt that the object of cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and to secure justice towards the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order so as to avoid tempering with the evidence in the heinous crime. However, in the present case only complaint has been made, but nothing is available on record to indicate that the police has also found substance in the allegations. It is noticed by this Court that in maximum cases applications are filed for cancellation of bail on the allegation that after release from jail applicant has been given threat to the complainant party, but that is not sufficient to reach the conclusion. There must be some material available on record indicating that the accused actually misused the liberty granted but in absence of any cogent material power under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C cannot be exercised by this Court.

9. I do not find any substance in the petition, therefore, the same is hereby rejected.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 7/26/2023 2:12:56 PM

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE Vin**

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 7/26/2023 2:12:56 PM