Anju Kumari Arya vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

In S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 21/2017 This application for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent-Rishabh Singh in FIR

No.57/2017, Police Station Begun by Additional Session Judge, Chittorgarh, Camp Begun in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.380/2017 on

11.04.2017 has been preferred by the victim Ms. ""A"" before this Court.

After availing several opportunity to file reply, respondent has not filed reply to the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent was enlarged on bail by the impugned order dated 11.04.2017 for the offence in the FIR

No.57/2017 registered under Section 376 IPC. After bail order, respondent is threatening to the victim on mobile; he is also using objectionable

language on social media against the victim, for which, victim lodged many complaints against the respondent but no action was taken against him. He

has also placed on record, copies of the complaints lodged by her to the police and other authorities lodged in the year 2017 itself. Since respondent

has misused the liberty by indulging in above activity, the bail granted to him should be cancelled. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that not such averment have been made in the application seeking cancellation of the bail application. The grounds raised in the

application are based on the illegality of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and not misuse of the liberty in granting the bail.

Having considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has

failed to make out the case for allowing the application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Not a single averment has been made regarding the misuse of

liberty granted to him by threatening the victim on mobile or otherwise. The grounds taken in the petition relates to the legality of the order passed by

Additional Sessions Judge while granting the bail to the respondent, hence, without averment, this Court is of the view that bail granted to the

respondent cannot be legally cancelled. Cancellation of bail is a penal order, which cannot be resorted to be in a casual manner. The petitioner must

have incorporated the alleged facts regarding alleged threatning to the petitioner in the petition.

It is true that bail can be cancelled where order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh No.2, Camp Begun reveals that bail was granted after considering the material facts

available on record. For example: age of the victim, previous acquaintance between the parties, credibility of the incidence and the conversation taken

between them etc. It is also important to note that about 4 years have been passed away after passing of the impugned order granting bail to the

respondent and during this long period, no subsequent criminal case regarding the safety of the victim and other witnesses have been registered

against the petitioner. There are no justified grounds available before this Court to cancel the bail, hence, this Application seeking cancellation of bail is

disallowed. In S.B. Crl. Misc. Trnfr. Pet. No. 30/2017 By this petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., Complainant in the FIR No.57/2017, PS Begun,

District Chittorgarh seeks transfer of the case, pending before Additional District Judge, District Chittorgarh, Camp Begun to Court of Sessions,

Jaipur.

As per grounds taken in the petition, petitioner is at present residing at Jaipur; distance between Jaipur and Begun is at least 50 Kms, petitioner has to

travel such distance for attending Court on the several date of hearing and there is every apprehension that the respondent could harm her bodily at

any point of time. Most of the prosecution witnesses are resident of Jaipur, therefore, it would be convenient for the witnesses as well as for the

petitioner, if case is transferred to the Court of Sessions at Jaipur.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

During arguments, it is revealed that petitioner and most of witnesses have been examined during trial at Begun before Additional Sessions Judge,

Chittorgarh. Petitioner need not to attend every hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, Camp at Begun. About four years have

already been elapsed after filing of the challan.

In the considered opinion of this Court, only on account of convenience to some of the witnesses, it is not justified to transfer a criminal case from

competent jurisdiction to the place where complainant resides unless some compelling circumstances arises.

Since the victim and other witnesses, who are resident of Jaipur have already been examined during trial, the grounds raised in the petition do not

subsist now. Hence, this petition seeking transfer of the case is disallowed.