Isha Patel vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6491 Tel

     HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.8253 of 2022

ORDER:

1. Heard Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is

representing Respondent No.1 and Sri V.Raghunath,

learned counsel who is representing Respondent No.2.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2)

Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to set-aside the order dated

05.05.2022 that is passed by the Court of IX Additional

Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2022 in

Crime No.175 of 2022 of Kamareddy Police Station and

thereby, to cancel the bail.

3. Upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, the

following facts could be perceived:-

(i) A case was registered against the 2nd respondent basing on the complaint given by the petitioner on 20.03.2022 vide Crime No.175 of 2022 of Kamareddy Police Station.

(ii) The 2nd respondent was arrested on 23.03.2022 and was remanded to judicial custody.

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

(iii) The Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, through orders in Crl.M.P.No.71 of 2022, dated 08.04.2022, allowed the application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and directed release of the 2nd respondent on bail on executing the required bond.

(iv) The 2nd respondent was released from judicial custody on 11.04.2022.

(v) The petitioner moved an application vide Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2022 before the same Court seeking for cancellation of the bail.

(vi) The said application stood dismissed through order dated 05.05.2022.

4. Making his submission, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that a case was registered against the

2nd respondent that he committed offences punishable

under Sections 376 IPC and other provisions of law and

basing on the allegations levelled, the 2nd respondent was

arrested. Learned counsel states that the 2nd respondent

was subsequently released on bail. He submits that after

release from judicial custody, the 2nd respondent and his

family members started threatening the petitioner and her

family members and therefore, the petitioner gave a

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

complaint to police basing on which a case in Crime

No.226 of 2022 of Kamareddy Police Station was registered

for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Learned

counsel states that subsequently, charge sheet was also

laid. Learned counsel submits that in the light of

continuous threatening of the 2nd respondent and his

family members, there is threat to the life of the petitioner

and therefore, the petitioner moved an application for

cancellation of bail. But the said application stood

dismissed. Learned counsel states that now, the petitioner

is before this Court seeking the relief of cancellation of bail.

5. The submission of learned Additional Public

Prosecutor is that after release of the 2nd respondent from

judicial custody, basing on the complaint given by the

petitioner, a case was registered against the 2nd respondent

and others, was investigated into and charge sheet was

filed. However, there is no submission from the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecuting agency

has challenged the order of grant of bail vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2022, dated 05.05.2022 or that the

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

prosecuting agency has taken any steps for cancellation of

bail granted.

6. Making his submission, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent states that bail granted once should not be

cancelled on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent has brought to the notice of this Court certain

facts:-

(a) That the petitioner herself met the 2nd respondent while he was in judicial custody four times voluntarily.

(b) That the petitioner started harassing the 2nd respondent and he became the victim.

(c) That the petitioner introducing herself to be the member of National Commission for Women Rights, started conversing with the Superintendent of the Hospital where the 2nd respondent was working and started telling unnecessary things against the 2nd respondent.

(d) That the petitioner started misusing the contact details of the 2nd respondent and in that regard, basing on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.566 of 2022 of Subedari Police Station.

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

7. Learned counsel states that it is the petitioner who

has subjected the 2nd respondent to undue harassment by

meeting him repeatedly in the jail and also subsequently

thereafter and hence, the request sought for, through this

petition, is wholly unjustifiable.

8. When the learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that basing on the request made by one of the

counsels of the 2nd respondent by name Maqsood Ahmed,

the petitioner went to jail to meet the 2nd respondent and

she has not met the 2nd respondent voluntarily, the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent brought to the notice of this

Court the statement given by the petitioner under Section

164 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Mobile), Kamareddy. In the said statement, she narrated

that recently, she spoke with the 2nd respondent/accused

at jail and he informed that he will speak in that regard

after he comes out from the jail. This Court is not inclined

to reveal what she stated regarding the merits of the case.

As far as her statement with regard to meeting of the 2nd

respondent at jail is concerned, she did not state that she

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

met the 2nd respondent/accused at jail under the

instigation or under the pressure of Sri Maqsood Ahmed,

Advocate, as contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent came into contact with each other through an

'App' and started maintaining physical relationship

thereafter. Also, it is not in dispute that subsequently,

disputes arose between them. Stating that bail once

granted should not be cancelled without sufficient

grounds, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

between CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HYDERABAD

Vs. SUBRAMANI GOPALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER1 wherein the

Court at Para 23 of the order held as follows:-

"23. 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

(2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 296

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

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."

10. In this regard, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case between X vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER2

wherein the legal position was discussed at Paras 14 & 15

of the order which is as under:-

"14. 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,

(2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 511

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolat Ram v State of Haryana3 observed that: (SCC pp.350-51, Para 4)

"4. 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 granted. 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 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."

15. These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in CBI v Subramani Gopalakrishnan4 and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of U.P:5 (Subramani case, SCC pp.303-04, Para 23)

(1995) 1 SCC 349

(2011) 5 SCC 296

92018) 3 SCC 22

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

"23. 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."

11. Ultimately, the Court at Para 17 of the order held as

follows:-

"17. The accused had the benefit of an order granting him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled principally on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been informed during the course of the hearing that the said prosecution has ended in

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

an acquittal. Regular bail was granted by the High Court on 17.11.2017 in the present case. The second FIR which was lodged on 22.11.2017 is not, in our view, a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has submitted that the lodging of the second FIR, four days after the order of bail is merely an attempt to bolster a case based on a supervening event and that it suffers from vagueness and a complete absence of details. We are not inclined to make any further observations and leave the matter there. Above all, the Court must bear in mind that it is a 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. We find that to be absent in the present case."

12. Denying the submission made by the learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner

based his submission on the judgments rendered in

Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)6,

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee7 and Anurag

Soni v. State of Chattisgarh8. The above decisions

discussed the circumstances when the power granted

(1978) 1 SCC 118

(2010) 14 SCC 496

2019 SCC Online SC 509

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

under Section 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. It is

not the case of the petitioner that bail was granted without

taking into consideration the relevant factors. The whole

case of the petitioner is that in the light of the subsequent

events, the bail granted is required to be cancelled. The

fact that the petitioner met the 2nd respondent while he

was in judicial custody is borne by record. Though it is

contended that the petitioner, under the pressure of the

advocate for the 2nd respondent, met the 2nd respondent,

she did not state so while giving her statement before the

concerned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. That

apart, when the petitioner has given complaint to police

against the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has also

given a complaint to police against the petitioner herein. In

both the cases, charge sheet is filed. Apart from all these

things, there is no submission from the prosecuting agency

that bail granted has to be cancelled for the safety and

security of the petitioner herein. Also, it is not the case of

the prosecuting agency that the petitioner had at any time

from the date of his release from judicial custody has

interfered with the investigating process or had attempted

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

to flee from Justice. Also, it is not the case that the

petitioner, at any time of her visits to jail to meet the 2nd

respondent, has informed the investigating Officer that

under the pressure of the counsel for the 2nd respondent,

she is meeting the 2nd respondent. Also, it is not her case

that she, under pressure, has given statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate. That

apart, the State is under obligation to give sufficient

protection to the victim as well as witnesses. Therefore, in

case there is any requirement for according protection, the

petitioner is well empowered to move an application before

the concerned Court or before the concerned Station House

Officer seeking protection. This Court is of the view that

the bail granted once cannot be cancelled on trivial issues

or non-prominent grounds. Therefore, this Court is of the

view that the request sought for, cannot be accorded.

13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

Date:06.12.2022 ysk

Dr.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8253 of 2022

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8253 of 2022

Date:06.12.2022 ysk