High Court of Delhi was dealing with a petition filed under Section 439(2) CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondents passed by the Patiala House Court in BAIL APPLNs emanating from FIR registered for the offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.
Brief Facts:
The complainant has alleged that pursuant to her marriage, she has constantly been harassed by her in-laws. It is alleged that all the articles given to her by her parents were taken away from her by her mother-in-law and her father-in-law attempted to rape her and has outraged her modesty. She alleged that her brother-in-law had outraged her modesty. The respondents filed an application under Section 438 CrPC praying for grant of anticipatory bail. It is admitted by both sides that stridhan articles as admitted by the husband and brother-in-law have been returned. However, the counsel for the complainant submitted that substantial jewelry of more than Rs.3 crores have not yet been returned. It is also stated that only one locker of the husband of the complainant was searched and that too after the husband of the complainant had already operated the locker and removed the jewellery.
Trial Court’s Decision:
The learned Trial Court after observing that the I.O. had accepted the accused persons have joined investigation on many occasions and no articles of the complainant were found in the lockers of the accused and stridhan articles admitted by the accused have been returned to the complainant; granted bail to the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the grievance of the complainant that the matter has not been investigated fairly or that the investigating agencies have acted in connivance with the accused could be addressed by moving the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and it is for the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. This order has been assailed by the complainant.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that after anticipatory bail was granted by the Trial Court, the mother-in-law of the complainant operated the locker with the permission of the court. He states that this amounts to tampering with evidence, and, therefore, bail ought not to have been granted. He also stated that the allegations in the FIR as substantiated by the statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC that the offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature and anticipatory bail ought not to have been granted to the respondents.
He contended that the allegations contained in the FIR and the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement are serious in nature and the investigating authorities have failed to factor into account the fact that the petitioner was given a stupefying substance by her father-in-law with the intention of having forceful intercourse with her. It was contended that a major portion of stridhan items have not been returned by the Respondents and only a small portion of the articles, jewelry and other possessions have been given back. He contends that the investigation done by the Police is being carried out in a botched-up manner, being unduly influenced by the Respondents because of their social stature.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that they had joined investigation, prior to the stage when anticipatory bail was given by the learned Trial Court and have been unfailingly appearing before the I.O. as and when summoned. He argued that the respondents joined investigation after receiving the notice. He submitted that in view of the respondents cooperating with the investigation, there is no requirement for their custody.
It was submitted that notices under Section 91 CrPC were sent to Standard Chartered Bank to give details of the Bank Lockers owned by the Respondents asking for the dates on which it had been accessed after registration of criminal proceedings by the Petitioner. It was submitted that the respondent opened the bank lockers in the presence of the S.H.O./I.O. and no stridhan/jewellery of the Petitioner was found to be there. It was argued that the FIR filed by the Petitioner is the result of her being disgruntled, as her demands of expanding her jewellery business were not met with by the Respondents.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that the petitioner has filed the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents. Court stated that there is a significant difference between an order rejecting an application for bail and an order for cancellation of bail. An order rejecting a plea for bail in non-bailable offences is in the discretionary domain of the Court and such a case can be decided without delving into details, it can be rejected simpliciter on the gravity of the offence and the perception that liberty, if granted, will be abused by the accused. Whereas in the case of cancellation, the Court is called upon to extinguish the liberty that has been formerly granted.
Court also stated that a Court must tread with utmost circumspection, and only after an in-depth examination of the situation and new emergent facts and on finding supervening circumstances and overwhelming evidence that the accused has been abusing the liberty granted to him by the Court, should the Court then exercise its jurisdiction in seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial. Court stated that another reason for the Court to be more circumspect in setting aside an order granting bail is that, it involves review of a well-considered, reasoned judicial order granting bail. Personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms. Once granted to an accused pending completion of the Trial, it must only be retracted in the face of grave and exacerbating circumstances.
Court observed that the power conferred under Section 439(2) CrPC has to be exercised in a discreet fashion, without dwelling on the merits of whether bail should have been granted or not and only upon viewing the subsequent conduct of an accused. The power is coupled with the reserve and caution, akin to the usage of the High Court’s inherent powers given under Section 482 CrPC.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “an application for cancellation of bail is different from an application for grant of bail. While dealing with an application challenging the order granting bail, the Court has to see whether the order granting bail was vitiated by any serious infirmity or not. Ordinarily, High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with an order of bail granted by Special Judge in favour of the accused if there is no serious infirmity in it. The order of the learned ASJ is a well-reasoned order which does not require any interference from this Court.”
HC dismissed the application.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Charu Soneja v. State (Nct Of Delhi) And Ors.
Case Details: CRL.M.C. 2050/2021
Read Judgement @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
