Edakulapally Krupa Rani vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 709 Tel

                 HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6649 OF 2020


ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of

Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A1

in Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2020 dated 22.09.2020 on the file of the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-

cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, on the ground

that the 2nd respondent is threatening the petitioner/de facto

complainant day in and day out with active connivance of all his

family members and with the help of anti social elements.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.09.2020 at 6.30

P.M., the petitioner herein lodged a complaint stating that she, along

with her family members, have been living in Hafeezpet. The

grandmother of the petitioner is living in Mallikarjunapalli Village,

Munipally Mandal and the petitioner herein went to the said village

during school holidays, where she got acquaintance with the 2nd

respondent and they fell in love since 2017. Under the guise of

marriage, the 2nd respondent influenced the petitioner and exploited

her sexually. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent failed to marry her on

the ground that his parents did not agree for their marriage.

By an order, dated 22.09.2020, the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-II Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, granted regular bail to the 2nd

respondent/A1 on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with

two sureties to the like amount each and also directed him to appear

before the concerned S.H.O. on every Sunday till filing of charge

sheet.

Nearly three months later, the present Criminal Petition came

to be filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant seeking

cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd respondent.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd

respondent is misusing the bail granted to him. It is further

submitted that after obtaining regular bail, the 2nd respondent is

threatening the petitioner day-in and day-out with active

connivance of all his family members and with the help of anti-social

elements. It is also submitted on 07.10.2020 at 1.30 P.M., when the

petitioner was alone in the house of her grandmother at Thatipally

Village, the 2nd respondent, along with some anti-social elements,

came there with an intent to kill the petitioner. Thereupon, the 2nd

respondent manhandled the petitioner along with his accomplices,

abused her in filthy language, and threatened her for filing criminal

case against him and his family members and also to kill her and her

family members brutally, if she is not going to withdraw the

criminal case. It is further submitted that the petitioner

accompanied by her parents, approached the Police and lodged a

written complaint against the 2nd respondent and his other

accomplices with a request to take immediate action against them in

accordance with law. Though the police issued a receipt, but they

did not take any action against the accused in this regard. It is

further submitted that when the petitioner was going to college and

coming back to her residence after attending classes, some unknown

miscreants used to follow her and abuse her in filthy language and

tried to attack her physically and also threaten to pour acid on her

face and to kill her and also her family members. It is also submitted

that there is a serious threat to the life of the petitioner and also to

the lives of her family members and, therefore, the bail granted to

the 2nd respondent/A1 is liable to be cancelled.

A counter came to be filed by the 2nd respondent/A1 stating

that the grounds raised in the petition are vague, baseless and

without iota of evidence. The trial Court granted bail to the 2nd

respondent by imposing conditions. It is stated that the 2nd

respondent never threatened the petitioner and her family members

with the help of anti-social elements. There is no such incident after

release of the 2nd respondent and the complaint dated 07.10.2020 is

created one for the purpose of filing the present Criminal Petition. It

is also stated that the 2nd respondent and his family members were

falsely implicated in the case at the instance of rival group though

they have not committed any offence. Though the imprisonment

for the alleged offences is below seven years, the police did not

follow the guidelines of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of

Bihar and another1. It is further stated that all the allegations raised

in the Criminal Petition are false and hence the same is liable to be

dismissed.

It is well established law that different yardsticks have to be

adopted for cancellation of bail and interference with an order

granting bail. The Court should take into consideration the post bail

conduct and supervening circumstances for deciding as to whether

it requires cancellation of bail.

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation2 the

Apex Court held as under:

"In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principal that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands, that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any

AIR 2014 SC 2756

(2012) 1 SCC 40

person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

In Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra3 the Apex

Court held as under:

".............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 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."

1999 Crl.L.J. 4063

In Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan4, the Apex

Court held as under:

"While cancelling bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. the primary considerations which weigh with the Court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc., would not deter the Court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact of the society."

It is a settled law that bail granted can be cancelled on the

ground which has arisen after the bail was granted. It is generally

presumed that at the time of hearing of the bail application, the

prosecution has raised all possible grounds which could go against

2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 85

the accused in the matter of bail and, therefore, when once bail has

been granted to the accused, the prosecution cannot have the bail

cancelled on some circumstances which may have existed before the

grant of bail.

The ground of cancellation of bail and grounds of rejection of

bail are two different circumstances and hence the approach of the

Court should also be different. At the time of hearing the bail

application, the Court looks at the possibilities of the violation of

bail conditions and the Court has to be more open and flexible,

whereas while hearing the cancellation application, the Court has to

be more rigid and it has to examine not only the possibility of

violations but whether the actual violation has taken place or not.

The Court should be more rigid here and actual proof of violation is

required.

In the instant case, no incriminating evidence has been

brought by the petitioner which could create an adverse opinion

regarding the conduct of 2nd respondent after grant of bail. The

power of cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and

circumspection of cogent and overwhelming circumstances which

are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. Where there

is no violation of the terms of order granting bail, cancellation is not

justified. The bail already granted should not be cancelled in a

routine manner as it jeopardize personal liberty of the person.

Having regard to the circumstances stated above and in view

of the judgments referred to above, the Criminal Petition is

dismissed. But, however, the 2nd respondent is directed to stay at

Mallikarjunapally Village, Munipally Mandal, Sanga Reddy District,

Telangana State and report before the concerned Police Station twice

in a week i.e. on every Wednesday and Sunday between 10.00 A.M.

and 5.00 P.M. until further orders.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

05.03.2021 gkv/Gsn