Kaushik Raj Yadav Koushik vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 227 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.11043 OF 2022
ORDER:

1. The petitioners, who are children in conflict with law are

questioning the cancellation of bail granted to them in an

offence of murder vide order in Crl.M.P.No.962 of 2022 in

Cr.No.100 of 2022 passed by V Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate cum-Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice

Board.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Jagadish Prasad

Panwar, S/o.Ram Bagar Panwar filed complaint stating that

he has two grandsons namely Neeraj Panwar and Harsh

Panwar. Neeraj Panwar married one Sanjana without the

consent of elders and they were blessed with a baby boy and

staying at Falaknuma. Sanjana's family members did not

accept the marriage and developed animosity against Neeraj

Panwar. On 20.05.2022, when he along with Neeraj were going

on a bike, Sanjana's cousin brother Vijay Yadav and his

friends attacked them with knives and boulders. Neeraj Pawar

received bleeding injuries and while undergoing treatment in

Osmania Hospital, he expired. The names of these petitioners

are not stated in the FIR. However, during the course of

investigation, these petitioners were arrested as being part of

members who attacked said Neeraj Panwar and caused his

death.

3. Bail was granted by the Juvenile Justice Board to these

petitioners on 09.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.562 of 2022.

4. On 16.09.2022 a complaint was filed by Jagadish Prasad

Panwar stating that these petitioners, who were released on

bail, are openly roaming in the locality with their friends. After

their release, they were being treated as guests in the locality

and they are frequently moving near his house. The other

accused at the time of Test Identification parade threatened

him and these petitioners roaming in the locality is causing

apprehension and danger to him since these petitioners and

others have committed murder of his grandson.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered

FIR under Section 195A and 506 of IPC. Having registered the

said complaint the police filed petition vide Crl.M.P.No.962 of

2022 narrating the facts of murder case and also stated in the

petition that these petitioners were threatening the witnesses

and consequently violating the orders of Juvenile Board

granting bail. There is chance of tampering with the evidence

and threatening the witnesses, on account of their activities,

which also amount to adversely affecting public peace and

order. The Inspector further submitted that stringent steps

have to be taken for maintenance of public order, for which

reason, bail granted to these petitioners should be cancelled.

6. On the basis of the said petition filed by the Inspector of

Police, the Juvenile Justice Board having heard both the

parties passed orders on 14.11.2022 canceling the bail

granted to the children in conflict with law/petitioners herein.

The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are as follows:

"9. As per the complaint in FIR.213/2022, the CCL's are roaming freely in the locality and are threatening him and there is threat to his life from them. On perusal of record it is seen that complainant and the CCL's reside in the same locality. Naturally, when such grave allegation of murder is leveled and both the groups are residing in the same locality, there will be lot of animosity between them. Even, the Inspector of Police alleges that due to the CCL's presence in the locality public order and peace is adversely affected. Such environment is not safe even for the CCL's as there could be

retaliation against the CCL's by the other group. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the present environment in which the CCL's are now residing is not physically and psychologically safe for them.

10. Therefore, in the safety and in the best interest of the CCL's and to serve ends of justice, this Board decides to cancel the bail granted to the CCL's as prayed for."

7. The Juvenile Board, mainly on the ground that the

presence of these petitioners in the locality would adversely

affect peace in the area and also the environment would not be

safe for these petitioners cancelled bail granted to these

petitioners.

8.   Learned            counsel            appearing            for            the

respondent/complainant           Jagadish       Prasad      Panwar      would

submit that the case is one of 'honour killing'. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the judgment reported in the case of Ms.P.

v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2022 Supreme Court 2183]

cancelled bail granted under similar circumstances of honour

killing. For the said reason, impugned order cancelling bail of

petitioners, which was granted earlier to the petitioners by

order of Juvenile Justice Board cannot be interfered with, in

the present application.

9. It is well settled law that while cancelling a bail already

granted, there should be cogent and overwhelming

circumstances. Unless compelling reasons are made out for

cancellation of bail, the Courts shall not interfere with bail

granted and reverse the said order of grant of bail and send

the accused to prison.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Mrs.P. v.

State of M.P (supra) enumerated the circumstances illustrative

in nature under which bail can be cancelled, which are as

follows:

"a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;

b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;

c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;

d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;

e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

g) If he is likely to flee from the country;

h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;

i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.

j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial."

11. In the present case, the bail of the CCLs was cancelled on

the ground that; i) petitioners and the complainant live in the

very same locality; ii) If both the parties in such a case of

honour killing live in the same locality there would be

animosity; iii) presence of these petitioners in the locality

would adversely affect the public order; iv) such environment

is not safe for these CCLs as there could be retaliation against

these petitioners/CCLs from the other group; v) Residing in

the very same locality is not physically and psychologically

safe for the petitioners/CCLs.

12. The entire basis for cancellation of bail is that the

CCLs/petitioners were living in the same locality which could

adversely affect their safety. In the complaint filed and

registered as Crime No.213 of 2022 by the Jagadish Prasad

Panwar, it is not specifically mentioned that these petitioners

have in any manner encountered or threatened said Jagadish

Prasad Panwar or anyone else directly. Respondent counsel

except stating that their presence in the area is threatening

and that these petitioners were staring at Jagadish Prasad

Panwar and others causing anxiety and feeling of threat, no

other relevant grounds are mentioned.

13. Admittedly, there was never any encounter by these

petitioners in any manner either with Jagadish Prasad Panwar

or anyone of his relatives in his locality. None of the

conditions imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring

cancellation of bail are met. There is no involvement in similar

or other criminal activity. The police in the application do not

say that they are interfering with the course of investigation or

narrate any instance of tampering with evidence. Admittedly,

there is no direct threat or influence to witnesses or

attempting to evade the court proceedings.

14. In the said circumstances, when according to the

subsequent complaint made by Jagadish Prasad Panwar and

also the finding of Juvenile Justice Board that the presence of

these petitioners in the locality is a hindrance or threat to the

petitioners themselves, this Court deems it appropriate to

direct the petitioners/CCLs not to stay in the said locality and

within the limits of P.S, Shahinayathgunj Police Station limits.

Since the grounds on which bail was set aside not being in

conformity with the instances/conditions laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while canceling bail, I am of the view

that the order cancelling bail on grounds of safety of these

petitioners cannot be made basis to cancel the bail.

Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate

dated 14.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.962 of 2022 is set aside with

the above direction. Needless to say that these

CCLs/petitioners shall not, in any manner, contact Jagadish

Prasad Panwar, any of his relatives or the witnesses in the

case. Further they shall appear before the police

Shahinayathgunj Police on every Monday at 10AM for the

purpose of investigation and attendance until further orders.

Except for the appearance, petitioners shall not enter the

police station limits.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed with above

directions.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.01.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.P.No.11043 of 2022

Dated: 18 .01.2023

kvs