Manish Dixit vs Nitin Shukla & Another

This petition filed u/Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of order dated 22/7/2020 (A/1) by which respondent No.1-accused was admitted to anticipatory bail in Crime No. 344/2020 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.), alleging offences punishable u/Ss.420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 IPC.

Learned counsel for petitioner raises following 2 grounds for seeking cancellation of bail:-

(1) That, the order of bail suffers from vice of suppression of material fact as respondent No.1-accused failed to disclose certain facts which had bearing upon the case and if the same were disclosed then this court would not have granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.1.

(2) That, respondent No.1 after being admitted to bail on 22/7/2020 misused the liberty by interfering with the prosecution by visiting the office of GDA and attempting to meddle with documents relating to the offence in question.

Reliance is placed by petitioner on the decisions of Apex court in R. Rathinam Vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch Madurai District, Madurai and Another (2000) 2 SCC 391 (para 6), Narendra K. Amin (Dr) Vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC 584 Prakash Kadam & others Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & another (2011) 6 SCC 189 (para 17) and the decision of Andhra Pradesh High court in Dasari Srihari Rao Vs Talluri Harinadha Babu 2002 (3)ALT 484.

Taking up the first ground it is seen that the same relates to merits of the matter. Learned counsel for petitioner seems to contend that in the given facts & circumstances, the benefit of anticipatory bail ought not to have been extended to respondent No.1. Though the petitioner herein has tried to built a case that respondent No.1 was very much part of the conspiracy while committing the offence of cheating and forgery, but the petitioner does not deny that respondent No.1 was a purchaser of the plot in question. Whether respondent No.1 posed as a purchaser intentionally or inadvertently is a question which cannot be decided without adducing of evidence.

4.1 Thus, it is clear that cancellation of bail is sought by contending that in the given facts & circumstances, the respondent No.1 should not have been granted bail. Meaning thereby that the order sought to be cancelled is challenged on merits where discretion exercised by this court is questioned. The remedy for doing so is before higher court and not in the limited jurisdiction u/Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C.

4.2 Cancellation of bail can be sought primarily on causes which arise subsequent to the event of grant of bail which is sought to be cancelled, i.e. misuse/breach of any of the conditions subject to which the bail is granted. If challenge is made on merits by contending that discretion exercised for grant of bail was incorrect then the window of interference is extremely limited and is open only when it can be successfully pointed out that no man of ordinary prudence in the available facts & circumstances could have extended the benefit of bail and thus the grant of bail was palpably and patently erroneous. For example in a case of murder bail is granted to the main accused who has caused the fatal injury under the wrong assumption that he is not the main accused.

4.3 Perusal of the record does not disclose that any such palpable error or grave and glaring mistake has taken place. An attack by petitioner through this petition u/Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. is against the discretion exercised by this court u/Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

4.4 The judgments relied upon by petitioner are of no assistance since they also in principle laid down the same law which is in line with the view taken by this court (supra).

4.5 As regards the contention of petitioner that respondent No.1 is influencing the prosecution case by interfering with the record, it goes without saying that looking to the condition subject to which respondent No.1 is admitted to anticipatory bail, the police is always free to take appropriate penal action in case any of the conditions is breached by respondent No.1.

Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with aforesaid observation.