2022 (1) TMI 1394 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of anticipatory Bail granted - Domestic violence - stridhan articles taken away by inlaws - case of petitioner is that the bank lockers have been operated after the grant of anticipatory bail, and therefore, tampering with the evidence i.e. stridhan and jewelry etc., would be a ground for cancellation of bail which should ordinarily be moved before the court granting bail. HELD THAT - There is a significant difference between an order rejecting an application for bail and an order for cancellation of bail. An order rejecting a plea for bail in non-bailable offences is in the discretionary domain of the Court and such a case can be decided without delving into details, it can be rejected simpliciter on the gravity of the offence and the perception that liberty, if granted, will be abused by the accused. Whereas in the case of cancellation, the Court is called upon to extinguish the liberty that has been formerly granted. A Court must tread with utmost circumspection, and only after an in-depth examination of the situation and new emergent facts and on finding supervening circumstances and overwhelming evidence that the accused has been abusing the liberty granted to him by the Court, should the Court then exercise its jurisdiction in seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial. Another reason for the Court to be more circumspect in setting aside an order granting bail is that, it involves review of a well-considered, reasoned judicial order granting bail. Personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms. An application for cancellation of bail is different from an application for grant of bail. While dealing with an application challenging the order granting bail, the Court has to see whether the order granting bail was vitiated by any serious infirmity or not. Ordinarily, High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with an order of bail granted by Special Judge in favour of the accused if there is no serious infirmity in it. The order of the learned ASJ is a well reasoned order which does not require any interference from this Court. This Court finds no merit in the arguments of the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC for offenses under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Anticipatory Bail Application:
The complainant filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws for various offenses. The complaint alleged constant harassment, theft of articles, attempted rape, and outrage of modesty. Anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents by the Trial Court after considering various factors, including the return of some articles, no custodial interrogation required, and the filing of the chargesheet.

2. Grounds for Cancellation of Bail:
The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail citing tampering with evidence after the grant of bail, serious nature of offenses, incomplete investigation, and pressure on the police by the affluent respondents. Allegations included administering stupefying substances, non-return of stridhan items, and fear of selling off the articles by the respondents.

3. Arguments for and Against:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondents operated bank lockers post-bail, indicating tampering with evidence. The respondents' counsel contended that they cooperated with the investigation, opened lockers in the presence of the Investigating Officer, and the FIR was a result of the petitioner's dissatisfaction over business matters.

4. Legal Principles on Bail Cancellation:
The Court highlighted the distinction between rejecting bail and canceling bail, emphasizing the need for careful consideration before revoking liberty granted to an accused. The power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) CrPC should be exercised cautiously, focusing on subsequent conduct rather than the initial grant of bail.

5. Court's Decision:
The Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail, noting that the respondents had cooperated with the investigation, and the bail order was well-reasoned. The Court emphasized that challenges to the investigation could be addressed separately, urging the complainant to approach the Metropolitan Magistrate for further action.

6. Final Observations:
The Court refrained from commenting on the investigation's nature, directing the Trial Court to independently evaluate any future challenges to the investigation process. The petition challenging bail was dismissed, maintaining the integrity of the bail order while allowing for separate scrutiny of investigative procedures.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach in canceling bail and suggesting avenues for addressing investigative grievances separately.