2020 (11) TMI 995 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of bail granted - main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the accused is a habitual offender and in support of the said contention has listed out the cases pending against him - HELD THAT - No doubt there are 10 criminal cases pending against respondent No. 2 for the commission of offences out of which one case is for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 468 471 120B of IPC and other three cases are for the offences punishable under Sections 376 420 506 and 417 of IPC whereas the particulars of the said cases were not furnished before this Court while granting bail to accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. As it is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 he has not been convicted for any offences in any other cases and it is also to be noted that in all the aforesaid cases he has been enlarged on bail. On perusal of the material placed before the Court except listing out the cases registered against the accused no other material is placed before the Court to show that he has been convicted for the commission of any offences in any other cases and in order to substantiate that he is a habitual offender no material is placed before the Court - It is clear from reading of the Section 439(2) that the High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. In the case on hand there is no any allegations against respondent No. 2 that he has violated the order of bail granted in his favour except alleging that there are number of cases registered against him. In the case on hand no doubt though 10 cases are listed out out of which 3 cases are registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 420 417 and 506 of I.P.C. It is important to note that in all the cases he has been enlarged on bail invoking Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. and not convicted. Merely because the prosecution has failed to bring out the said cases which are pending against him while considering the bail petition the same cannot be a ground for canceling the same - To invoke Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. there must be material before the Court to show that there is violation of conditions of the bail order granted or the accused is coming in the way of trial. Mere filing of cases is not a ground to come to the conclusion that he is a habitual offender and he has to be tried and found material that he is having criminal antecedents and having considered the nature of cases registered against him and the offences invoked against him it requires full fledged trial to ascertain the truth. In the absence of any material to show that he has violated the order of the Court or coming in the way of the trial and when this Court has considered the bail petition on merits the question of canceling the bail does not arise at all. In the absence of any cogent material on record the liberty of any person as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed on the mere ground of number of cases being pending against him. It is settled law that Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has to be invoked in exceptional cases when it causes miscarriage of justice if it is not invoked and the same has to be exercised sparingly and not mere asking of the cancellation of bail - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the bail granted to respondent No. 2 should be canceled under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. due to his alleged habitual offending and suppression of material facts.
2. Whether the presence of multiple pending cases against respondent No. 2 constitutes sufficient grounds for bail cancellation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the bail granted to respondent No. 2 should be canceled under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. due to his alleged habitual offending and suppression of material facts:
The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 is a habitual offender with 11 pending cases and has a modus operandi of deceiving women by promising marriage and inducing them to deliver money. The petitioner cited judgments such as Manikantan v. State of Karnataka and Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that the antecedents of the accused must be considered at the time of bail, and suppression of material facts can vitiate the bail order. The counsel for the petitioner also referenced Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that the bail should be canceled due to the accused's criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the presence of multiple pending cases against respondent No. 2 constitutes sufficient grounds for bail cancellation:
The counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that merely having pending cases does not make one a habitual offender, as per the legal definition, which requires convictions in more than three cases. It was highlighted that respondent No. 2 has not violated any bail conditions or interfered with the trial process. The court noted that while there are 10 pending cases against respondent No. 2, he has not been convicted in any of them and has been granted bail in all. The court emphasized that merely listing pending cases without showing violations of bail conditions or interference with the trial is insufficient to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that no material was presented to show that respondent No. 2 violated bail conditions or interfered with the trial. The presence of multiple pending cases alone does not justify bail cancellation. The court reiterated that Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. should be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the petition to cancel the bail was dismissed, upholding the principles of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.