2022 (5) TMI 1580 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory Bail challenged - criminal conspiracy to cheat the petitioner/complainant of valuable property - flight risk or not - HELD THAT - As has been held by the Supreme Court in Hazari Lal Das 2009 (9) TMI 929 - SUPREME COURT , following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (11) TMI 424 - SUPREME COURT , once bail is granted, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing its cancellation. The one seeking cancellation of the bail must show an interference by the accused or attempt to so interfere, with the due course of administration of justice or an evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or an abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is clear, in the present case, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to establish any of these factors, even on a prima facie view of the matter. There is no material placed on the record to show that the respondents/accused persons are a flight risk. No supervening circumstances have been brought to the notice that would establish that it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain their freedom. Though the arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondents to the effect that no offence was made out, but it is not considered apposite to discuss that aspect in the present petition, as those considerations would be more relevant, while determining the question as to what charge is to be framed against the respondents/accused. For the present, the question is whether, grounds exist for cancelling the bail already granted to the respondents/accused. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents/accused.
2. Challenge to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, misappropriation of funds, diversion of business, and forgery.
4. Grounds for challenging the anticipatory bail including non-application of judicial mind, serious nature of allegations, misappropriation of funds, fabrication of documents, and threat to the complainant.
5. Requirement of custodial interrogation for recovery of misappropriated goods, confrontation with witnesses, and unearthing the conspiracy.
6. Respondents' submission of investigations being completed, lack of challenge to bail order, and civil disputes not warranting criminal case conversion.
7. Argument against cancellation of bail based on misuse of liberty and reliance on precedents.
8. Legal principles governing cancellation of bail and lack of overwhelming circumstances in the present case.
9. Consideration of whether grounds exist for canceling the bail granted to the respondents.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses a petition filed challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents/accused in a case involving allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, misappropriation of funds, and diversion of business. The complainant alleged that the accused sold property belonging to their partnership firm for personal gain and ran a parallel company, leading to the filing of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.

2. The grounds for challenging the anticipatory bail included non-application of judicial mind, serious nature of allegations, misappropriation of funds, fabrication of documents, and the need for custodial interrogation to recover goods and unearth the conspiracy. The Investigating Officer highlighted the non-cooperation of the accused during investigations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for evidence recovery and confrontation with witnesses.

3. In response, the respondents argued that the petition was an attempt to extort money, investigations were completed, and civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. They contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that no challenge to the bail order was made by the State. The respondents also disputed the characterization of their company as a shell company and argued against the cancellation of bail.

4. The judgment emphasized the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail, requiring overwhelming circumstances showing interference with the administration of justice or abuse of concession granted to the accused. The Court found no merit in the petition, noting the lack of evidence establishing flight risk or supervening circumstances warranting the cancellation of bail. The judgment concluded that the question of canceling bail should be based on existing grounds rather than the merits of the offense itself.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented and upholding the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents/accused. The judgment highlighted the need for compelling circumstances to cancel bail and the importance of preserving the accused's freedom unless overwhelming factors necessitate otherwise.