Geeta nee Neha vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner is claiming cancellation of bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in connection with criminal case titled `Geeta v. Sunila Kumar and others'' under Sections 323, 498A, 406, 34 I.P.C.

Petitioner''s contention is that she was married with respondent No. 2 on 11.10.1992 at Phagwara. Dowry worth Rs. 2,50,000/ was given in her marriage. Soon after marriage she was being harassed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and her sisterinlaw on account of bringing less dowry. Though subsequently gifts were also given to them but were they not satisfied and started demanding Maruti car for which she was maltreated also. When she was at the advanced stage of pregnancy, she was sent by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to her parental home where she gave birth to a son Pratik. Respondent No. 2 never tried to bring her back. On the intervention of the Panchayat people she was sent back to her matrimonial home alongwith certain gifts and cash. Still there was no change in the behaviour of the respondents. Because of nonfulfilment of demand of dowry she was turned out of the matrimonial home in February, 1996. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and other accused also refused to return her Istri Dhan on demand. Thus according to the petitionercomplainant respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and other accused have committed offences under Sections 323, 498A, 406/34 IPC. She lodged a complaint, Annexure P1, to that effect in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara.

After recording preliminary evidence, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were summoned by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara vide order dated 8.4.1997. These respondents instead of appearing before the Court filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Crl. Misc. No. 12179M of 1997 in the High Court for quashing the complaint, which was dismissed on 30.5.1997 vide order Annexure P/2. The accused persons appeared before the trial Court on 14.6.1997 and were granted bail vide order Annexure P/3.

After being enlarged on bail, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have misused the concession of bail. On 29.6.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. they came to the house of the petitioner''s father with an intention to forcibly and illegally taking away Pratik, son of the petitioner. When brother of the petitioner declined to tell them the whereabouts of Pratik, on the exhortation of respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 slapped petitioner''s brother Lalit Nayyar and respondent No. 2 caused an inquiry on his left arm with a knife. About this incident, FIR (Annexure P/4) was lodged by Lalit Nayyar on 30.6.1997. He was also medically examined on 29.6.1997 and as per report Annexure P/5, he sustained wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm on the left upper arm in its middle lying horizontally. Earlier, also in February, 1996, these respondents tried to forcibly take away Pratik for which a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Phagwara on 26.2.1996 vide Annexure P/6. On the basis of the report lodged by Lalit Nayyar, Police registered an offence under Sections 324, 452, 506/34 IPC against these respondents. Police submitted chargesheet on 5.11.1997. Case was fixed for framing of the charge on 22.11.1997.

In October, 1997, petitioner and her brother Lalit Nayyar received anonymous threatening calls to eliminate them in case they did not withdraw their cases against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On 5.11.1997, respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioner outside the Court of Phagwara. She was told by him that he would set the petitioner and her family right for having filed cases against him and his parents. He also threatened to take away his son Pratik forcibly. The matter was at once reported to the Magistrate who asked the petitioner to file a complaint to the police in this regard. Petitioner reported the matter to the police by filing an application, Annexure P/7. Thus the petitioner contends that respondents have misused the concession of bail and are constantly causing apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and her family members. Hence, bail granted in their favour be cancelled.

Respondents in their reply denied all the allegations made against them in the petition and pleaded that they never went to petitioner''s house and never caused any injury to her brother. They never gave any threatening call to petitioner. It is also denied that respondent No. 2 threatened her in the Court. It is objected that cancellation of bail of answering respondents is sought by the petitioner only to harass and humiliate them by levelling false allegations. Petitioner never approached the Sessions Court to seek cancellation of their bail. It is also objected that the alleged act of misuse of concession of bail is said to have been committed on 29.6.1997 but the petition for cancellation of bail has been filed on 17.11.1997 after about 5 months. This is done with an ulterior motive only to embarrass and humiliate the answering respondents and to frustrate the marriage of Rakhi, younger sister of respondent No. 2, which was fixed for 8.12.1997. Thus according to them, this petition is filed with an oblique/mala fide motive.

During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly stressed that as soon as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came to know that petitioner''s complaint is registered in the trial Court and summoning order has been passed, they rushed to the High Court seeking its quashment. When that attempt proved futile and their petition bearing Cr. M. 12179M of 1997 was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 30.5.1997 (Annexure P/2) they approached the lower Court on 14.6.1997 and on that very date they were released on bail. Thereafter, on 29.6.1997 these respondents came to her parental home with an intention to forcibly take away Pratik, her brother Lalit Nayyar was present. When Lalit Nayyar declined to disclose whereabouts of Pratik, on the exhortation of respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3 slapped him and respondent No. 2 gave him knife injury on his left arm. Lalit Nayyar was examined by the Doctor on 29.6.1997 at 9.05 p.m. Doctor found one incised wound on his left upper arm as her injury report, Annexure P/5. On 30.6.1997, Lalit Nayyar lodged a report at Police Station, Phagwara, copy of FIR is Annexure P/4. Police has submitted chargesheet in this case.

Petitioner''s learned counsel also submitted that even thereafter in the month of October, 1997 petitioner and her brother received anonymous threatening telephonic calls informing them that they should withdraw their cases against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On 5.11.1997, respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioner in the Court itself for which she has submitted a complaint, Annexure P/7, before S.H.O. Police Station, Phagwara. Thus according to the learned counsel as these respondents are misusing the concession of bail, their bail orders should be cancelled.

Respondents learned counsel submitted that no doubt FIR, Annexure P/4, is lodged by the petitioner''s brother against these respondents, police has registered a case under Sections 324, 452, 506/34 IPC against these respondents vide Annexure P/4 but this report is also a counterblast. It is recorded with an oblique motive. If really the incident would have happened as reported in Annexure P/4, Lalit Nayyar would have lodged the report on 29.6.1997 because as per the complainant, the incident took place at 8.20 p.m. on that date. Even on that very night at 9.05 p.m. he was examined by the Doctor but he lodged this report on 30.6.1997 at 8.35 p.m. i.e. after 24 hours which shows that after due deliberation and consultation, this false report is lodged against these respondents with an oblique motive to get their bail orders cancelled.

Learned counsel also submitted that so far as anonymous telephonic calls are concerned, there is no material on record to show whether these respondents gave such threatening telephonic calls to the petitioner or to her brother.

He also pointed out that if really the petitioner or her brother thought that respondents are misusing their liberty, immediately after the incident of 29.6.1997 they would have filed such a petition before the Sessions Court or before the High Court for cancellation of their bail but immediately thereafter nothing was done by them. They filed this petition only on 17.11.1997 keeping in view that sister of respondent No. 2 was to be married on 8.12.1997. Their intention was to embarrass and humiliate them at this juncture of time. They also submitted copy of Panchayatnama, Annexure R2, to show that on 29.6.1997 at 7.30 p.m. two Municipal Councillors came to the house of respondent Raj Kumar with many other persons of the locality to solve the complaints of the local people. In the Panchayatnama it is also mentioned that at that time respondents Sunil and Veena Rani were also present in the house. It is also contended by them that in connection with FIR dated 30.6.1997, Annexure P/4, respondents Veena Rani and Raj Kumar were enlarged on bail under Section 433 Cr.P.C. and respondent No. 2 was also granted bail. While granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, learned Sessions Judge has observed that the allegations against the accused are such that probably they have been falsely involved in this case.

Thus, the respondent learned counsel submitted that just to harass and humiliate the respondents, petitioner has filed this petition.

After hearing the rival contentions, in my considered view, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is settled law that there are different parameters for the grant of bail which are quite different from the para meters on the basis of which bail order is to be cancelled. Bail can be cancelled if the accused are misusing the liberty of bail or are not making them available in the trial or are tampering with the prosecution evidence or on some such cognate reasons. There is no straistjacket formula on the basis of which bail granted to the accused can be cancelled. It all depends upon facts of each case. Admittedly, complainant lodged report under Sections 406, 498A and 323/34 IPC and the same is pending against these respondents in the criminal Court. They have been granted bail vide order dated 16.4.1997, Annexure P/3. As per petitioner''s contention on 29.6.1997 at 8.30 p.m. these respondents went to petitioner''s parental home with a motive to forcibly take away Pratik, petitioner''s son from her custody. They met petitioner''s brother Lalit Nayyar who declined to give them whereabouts of Pratik. Whereupon, as per petitioner''s case, on the exhortation of respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3 slapped Lalit Nayyar and respondent No. 2 caused him an injury with a knife. On that very night at 9.05 p.m. Lalit Nayyar was medically examined by the Doctor but surprisingly enough report, Annexure P/4 was lodged after 24 hours on 30.6.1997 at 8.35 p.m. No doubt, in this case also police has submitted chargesheet but the accused persons have been released on bail. While deciding this petition it will not be proper for me to comment on the merits of this complaint, Annexure P/4, because it is trite that enmity is a double edged weapon as it may provide a motive for the crime as also for false implication. But apparently immediately after 29.6.1997 respondents have not approached any Court for cancellation of bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. They have made vague allegations in para 6 of the petition that they received threatening telephonic calls to eliminate them in case they do not withdraw their cases against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. How respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are responsible for these alleged telephonic calls is not apparent from the allegations or from any other document. So far as threat in the Court is concerned, if really she would have been threatened by respondent No. 2 in the Court on 5.11.97 she would have filed such a petition in the Court itself instead of going to the Police Station and submitting application, Annexure P/7. Even on the merits of the complaint, I am not required to comment while deciding this petition.

The only point to be decided in this petition is whether really respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have misused their liberty on bail and have indulged in committing other crimes or they are threatening the petitioner and her brother with a view that they may not prosecute them in connection with their complaints. If really that would have been the cause of anxiety the petitioner would have immediately filed a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code before the competent authority after the incident of 29.6.1997 but they waited till 17.11.1997 to file this petition. The last incident according to the petitioner took place on 5.11.1997. Thus it appears that alleged threatening telephonic calls of October, 1997 and alleged incident in the Court on 5.11.1997 are just tailored to show that there was some immediate cause for the petitioner to file such a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code. On the basis of such like allegations and especially taking into consideration the delay with which this petition is filed, in my considered view, it is not proper and justificiable to cancel the bail order of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Since it is a in house dispute, it is taking such twists and turns.

Finding no merit in the petition, it is dismissed.