Lubna vs Ganesh and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-victim under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking the cancellation of bail granted by the trial Court on 14.07.2015 in Crl.Misc. No. 242/2015.

The brief facts of the complainant''s case that on the basis of the information given by one Smt. Taranum W/o. Saleem Kabaldar, case has been registered, wherein, she stated that she is residing with her mother and other family members at Vannalli and by the side of their house, the house of the petitioner is situated. On 05.06.2015 some relatives came to their house, they have also visited the house of the petitioner, after their return from the house of the petitioner, one person came on motorcycle, entered the house of the petitioner and came out of the house and went away on the same motorcycle. Petitioner came out of the house and went away on the same motorcycle. When that person came out of the house, petitioner-Lubna, Complainant''s aunt came out crying by saying "bachavo bachavo". After hearing the said words, complainant Taranum, her mother and other relatives went near her to see her. Petitioner informed that, the person, who came on the motorcycle entered the house forcibly by pushing the doors even though she tried to close the doors. The said persons forcibly closed her mouth with the help of cloth and took her to bedroom and stabbed with the knife on stomach repeatedly four to five times and robbed golden mangalya chain weighing about 55 grams and four golden bangles weighing about 12 grams and went away.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is the victim seeking cancellation of the bail, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-accused No. 1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 2-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, they are all incised wound and the wound certificate is also produced in this regard. It is the contention that accused person is a habitual offender and he is in the habit of committing such offences. It is the further contention that if such person is granted with bail, he will involve in committing the similar offences in future also. On these grounds sought cancellation of the bail order. It is the contention that the accused person is involved in committing the other offences also and he has referred to the document and submitted about the observations made by the Police Officers. Hence, he sought that bail order is to be cancelled.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, who is accused No. 1, has submitted that no such application has been moved by the Investigating Officer seeking cancellation of the bail order. It is also submitted that looking to the order passed by the trial Court, the factual aspects involved in the case were taken into consideration and then only such order has been passed. It is further submitted that there is no violation of any of the condition of the bail order imposed by the trial Court. Hence, no grounds are made out to allow the petition and to cancel the bail.

Learned HCGP for respondent No. 2-State has submitted that looking to the nature of the offences, it is a case for cancellation of the bail order.

I have perused the averments made in the petition seeking cancellation of the bail order, FIR, complaint and remand application, so also the order sheet of the trial Court produced along with the petition.

I have also perused the bail order granted by the Sessions Court dated 14.07.2015. The material shows that when respondent No. 1-accused No. 1 moved the bail application before the Sessions Court, opportunity was given to the prosecution to file the objections statement to the bail application. The copy of the objection statement is also produced as per Annexure -E and the prosecution has taken up the contentions and opposed the bail application.

Looking to the bail order passed by the Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge taken into consideration the aspects involved in the case and it was observed that "the case was registered against unknown person and it is no doubt true, it was observed that so far as the injuries are concerned, injury certificate was not yet produced and it is yet to be produced." Considering the merits of the case, the Sessions Judge by exercising the discretionary power, granted bail to respondent No. 1-accused No. 1 by imposing the conditions.

Now it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any of the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge has been violated by respondent No. 1-accused No. 1, but it is the contention that looking to the seriousness of the offence, the bail order is to be cancelled. This aspect is already taken note of by the Sessions Judge. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1-accused No. 1 that the Investigating Officer has not moved any such application making the allegation either that the accused has violated any of the conditions of the bail order or he is not cooperating in the investigation of the case. Under these circumstances and in the absence of those allegations when the bail order has been granted by the Sessions Judge exercising his discretion, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-victim seeking for cancellation of the bail order, has not made out a case to allow the petition and to grant the relief sought for in the petition. Therefore, the petition is hereby rejected.