2016 (8) TMI 1554 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of anticipatory bail - bailable offences or not - applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the Court considered the fact that the two accused were ladies and ordinarily they were entitled to discretionary relief in their favour however considering the facts of the case this Court was of the opinion that it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Pooja and Jyoti surrendered on 4th May 2016 whereafter the first applications for regular bail was filed on 17th May 2016. Obviously since by that time investigation was going on and considering the nature of allegations the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail applications. When the second bail applications were filed which came up on 9th June 2016 both Pooja and Jyoti had spent more than one month in custody and no more custodial interrogation was warranted as the time for police custody remand was over. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order also noted that both Pooja and Jyoti were married women having minor children to support and to be looked after and were no more required for custodial interrogation thus imposing appropriate conditions to allay the apprehensions raised on behalf of the complainant bail was granted. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also noted that trial may take considerable time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars. The conditions are stringent. For the offences invoked in the FIR Pooja and Jyoti could not be kept in custody till the conclusion of the trial - there are no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of regular bail to accused in FIR challenging cancellation of bail
2. Consideration of previous bail applications and investigation status
3. Peculiar circumstances leading to rejection of anticipatory bail
4. Imposition of stringent conditions for bail

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the grant of regular bail to Pooja and Jyoti, accused in FIR No. 854/2014 under various sections of IPC, challenged by the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail. The petitioner did not implead Pooja and Jyoti as parties in the petition, leading to a key procedural issue.

2. The court considered the history of previous bail applications and the status of the investigation. The applicants had earlier filed anticipatory bail applications which were dismissed by the court due to peculiar circumstances involving constant problems over parking and previous altercations. Despite the investigation pending, the court noted the applicants had been in custody for over a month, and no further custodial interrogation was necessary.

3. The rejection of anticipatory bail was based on the peculiar nature of the case, where the court acknowledged that ordinarily, being ladies, the applicants would be entitled to discretionary relief. However, due to the repeated altercations and specific incidents leading to the FIR, the court found it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The subsequent surrender and filing of regular bail applications were also considered in light of the ongoing investigation.

4. Stringent conditions were imposed for the grant of bail, taking into account the bailable nature of most offenses in the FIR and the personal circumstances of the applicants, who were married women with minor children. The court emphasized that keeping them in custody till the conclusion of the trial would not serve any useful purpose, leading to the decision to grant bail with specific conditions to address the concerns raised by the complainant.

5. Overall, the judgment upholds the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant bail to Pooja and Jyoti, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the nature of offenses, and the personal situation of the accused. The court found no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed on 9th June, 2016, and dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of bail.