AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, J.—This is a petition for cancellation of bail granted by this Court in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 739, 740 and 741 of 2011 on 29.09.2011 in FIR No. 85 of 2011 dated 18.09.2011 under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Rajgarh.
It has been stated that respondents 2 to 4 placed wrong facts and suppressed material facts from this Court and obtained bail on 29.09.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 739, 740 and 741 of 2011. It has been stated that the important fact which the respondents 2 to 4 misrepresented is that petitioner was mentally ill prior to the marriage. It has been stated that petitioner/complainant was not at all mentally ill before her marriage, she was forced to see this situation because of the misconduct of respondents 2 to 4.
It has been stated that in the first week of October, respondents No. 2 to 4 visited the house of the petitioner, abused her and threatened her to do away with her life. The respondents 2 to 4 even approached witnesses Ravi Dutt, Krishan Dutt Sharma and also threatened them. They proclaimed that they were on bail and nobody can touch them. The respondents 2 to 4 also threatened that many women had been missing and their whereabouts have not been traced. The petitioner will be one of them. On 21.10.2011 the petitioner approached the police bringing to the notice of the police authorities the misconduct of respondents 2 to 4, but no action has been taken by the police against respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner received legal notice on 10.10.2011 alleging that petitioner has committed theft.
The police had made recovery on 06.11.2011 and all the articles were recovered from the house of respondents 2 to 4. On that date, the petitioner requested the police to take action on the application dated 21.10.2011 of the petitioner, but police has not done anything till now. In these circumstances, a prayer has been made for cancellation of the bail granted to respondents 2 to 4.
The status report has been filed. It has been stated in the status report that all the three accused got recovered key of the trunk, cheque of Rs. 51,000/-, three ladies suit, nose pin, gold ring, silver ring etc. and some documents which were handed over to the complainant on 06.11.2011 on supurdari. The complainant claimed Rs. 50,000/-, 27 ladies suit, one gold chain and �Shagun� (money) which was given to her at the time of her marriage to which respondents have shown ignorance. The complainant and her father submitted application dated 21.10.2011, but they could not produce any witness in support of the allegations made in the application dated 21.10.2011. On 06.01.2012, they have stated that they had submitted the application in haste and out of fear. They do not have any witness in support of the allegations made in the application dated 21.10.2011 nor any phone to this effect was received from respondents 2 to 4 after the registration of the case. It has been stated that respondents 2 to 4 are not co-operating in the investigation.
Heard and perused police file. The petition has been filed mainly on two grounds that bail has been obtained by respondents 2 to 4 by misrepresenting that complainant was mentally ill prior to the marriage which fact is incorrect. The respondents 2 to 4 even after the bail have threatened the complainant and witnesses and, therefore, prayer has been made for cancellation of bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, . In that case the Supreme Court has held that mere assertion of an alleged threat to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample scope for making such allegation to nullify the bail granted. The Court before which such allegations are made should in each case carefully weigh the acceptability of the allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant in law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied Devender Kumar and Another etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc., wherein it has been held that the reason given by the High Court for cancellation of orders, granting bail and directing the arrest of the appellants on the ground that disclosures have been made by the appellants and that their police custody was necessary for recovery of the same, is not sufficient for the purpose of cancellation of bail granted earlier.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Puran Vs. Rambilas and Another etc. etc., wherein it has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of the nature like bride burning and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. In Puran (supra) the bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled by the High Court. The Supreme Court on those facts held as noticed above. In the present case, the bail has been sought to be cancelled which was granted by the High Court.
The order dated 29.09.2011 indicates that it was contended on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 herein that complainant and her family never disclosed before her marriage that complainant was getting treatment from Mental Hospital, Dharampur. It has also been noticed in the order dated 29.09.2011 that it was the case of the complainant that respondents 2 to 4 herein kept her confined in the room for 3-4 days, nor she was given any food. She was not allowed to touch her articles. The complainant became depressed due to the conduct of her in-laws. Her brother brought her back from her in-laws house and she was treated by Dr. Virender Mohan at Dharampur and the treatment was going on. This Court has not given any findings on the mental condition of the complainant, rather in the judgment dated 29.09.2011, it has been stated that the observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail applications and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
In the status report filed now, it has again been stated that treatment of the complainant is going on with Dr. Virender Mohan at Dharampur regarding depression. Therefore, it cannot be said that by misrepresentation of fact regarding mental state of complainant before her marriage, the respondents 2 to 4 obtained bail from this Court on 29.09.2011.
In the status report, it has been stated that complainant and her father have stated that the allegations made in the application dated 21.10.2011 were made in haste, out of fear and they do not have any witness in support of the allegations. The petitioner has placed nothing on record worth-believing that the prosecution witnesses have been threatened by the respondents 2 to 4 after obtaining bail. The general statement in the status report that the respondents 2 to 4 are not co-operating in the investigation is without corroborative material on record. The State has not filed any application for cancellation of bail. The notice dated 10.10.2011 addressed to the petitioner cannot be construed as threat by respondents 2 to 4. The respondents have right to ventilate their grievance, defence in accordance with law. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.