Ajay Chaunkar vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicant was granted bail by A.C.J.M., Haldwani, vide order dated 10.05.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequent thereto, a chargesheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the applicant with respect to offences punishable under Sections 406 & 506 IPC also. The complainant moved an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicant was not granted bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 506 IPC and that the applicant was threatening her. Learned A.C.J.M., Haldwani, therefore, cancelled the bail of the applicant, vide order dated 22.05.2014.

Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.

Initially, this Court was not inclined to admit the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the applicant ought to have preferred a criminal revision, but then, learned counsel for the applicant placed a catena of decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court before this Court to show that application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (not the criminal revision) was maintainable against the order of cancellation of bail. A reference of those rulings is given by this Court in it''s order dated 02.06.2014.

Today, learned counsel for the applicant has placed a copy of the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by learned Incharge, Sessions Judge, Nainital to show that the applicant was granted bail for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 506 IPC also. Thus, one of the grounds, on the basis of which the bail of the applicant was cancelled, has been met by the applicant. [The applicant has been enlarged on bail under Sections 406 & 506 IPC.] The other ground, on the basis of which the bail of the application was cancelled, was that the applicant intimidated his daughter-in-law (complainant). It was held by Hon''ble Apex Court in D.K. Jain and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , that 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. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the rulings of Hon''ble Apex Court in Sami Ullaha Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau, and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, .

In Sami Ullaha''s case (supra), it was held that while entertaining an application for cancellation of bail, it must be found that the accused had misused the liberty granted to him as a result whereof: (a) he has attempted to tamper with evidence; (b) he has attempted to influence the witnesses; (c) there is a possibility of the accused to abscond and, therefore, there is a possibility that the accused may not be available for trial.

In Samarendra Nath Battacharjee''s case (supra), it was held that the ground of intimidation should have been satisfactorily proved before the bail of accused is cancelled. Since the major ground, for which the bail of the applicant was cancelled, has been met by the applicant by obtaining bail under Sections 406 & 506 IPC, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order should be set aside paving way for the applicant to remain on bail.

For the reasons stated above, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds. The impugned order cancelling the bail of the applicant is set aside and the order of the trial court granting bail to the applicant on 10.05.2013 is hereby restored.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the applicant today itself, on payment of usual charges.