9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL MATRIX BEFORE THE GRANT OF BAIL 3. Marriage between Vinutha M. and Respondent No. 1 was solemnised in the year 2006. A male child was born from the wedlock in the year 2009. It is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was having an extramarital affair. He and his family members allegedly started harassing Vinutha M. soon after the birth of their child and pressurised her to sign the divorce papers. She, therefore, started living separately on the first floor of the matrimonial home. 4. Vinutha M. filed multiple criminal complaints of harassment including alleged attempts made on her life against Respondent No. 1 and his family members, leading to registration of several First Information Reports [Hereafter 'FIR'], the brief details of which are as follows: I. FIR No. 231/2015 was lodged under Section 498A of IPC at P.S. Vyalikaval, Bengaluru on 23.11.2015 alleging that Respondent No. 1 along with his family members assaulted and threatened the complainant to sign divorce papers. On her refusal, the mother of Respondent No. 1 tried to kill the Complainant by pouring kerosene oil on her but she managed to escape. II. FIR No. 238/2015 was registered under Sections 354(A) (2), 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint to the police station, Bengaluru on 21.10.2019, alleging specifically that Respondent No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to one Chinnaswamy and his associates for her ContractKilling. It appears that the abovenamed Chinnaswamy and his associates were caught redhanded on 29.11.2017 by the local police in connection with FIR 205/2017. They were subsequently released on bail, which posed an imminent threat to the Complainant's life at the hands of Respondent No. 1, and his associates like Chinnaswamy who had criminal antecedents. 9. The Complainant left no stone unturned and made yet another elaborate complaint reiterating the abovementioned allegations to the Chief Minister of Karnataka on 30.10.2019. Additionally, a women's organisation also came forward and made a complaint alleging collusion of the police officials of Vyalikaval Police Station with Respondent No. 1 stating expressly that the local police was 'inactive' for extraneous considerations. 10. It is also discernible from the contents of all the complaints that the son born from wedlock continued in the sole custody of the Complainant while Respondent No. 1 unabatedly kept on harassing the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 1 was directed to be released on bail. A.2 EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE GRANT OF BAIL AND FILING OF PRESENT SLP: 14. The aggrieved Appellant is in appeal before us. During the pendency of these proceedings, some disturbing events have taken place which are briefly noticed hereinafter: (a) Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 16.04.2021, but the matter could be taken up for effective hearing on 27.03.2023 only when it was informed that some complaints had been received against Respondent No. 1 after his enlargement on regular bail. Consequently, the Appellant was granted time to file an additional affidavit. (b) On 24.04.2023, this Court was apprised that though the charges had been framed, the trial was yet to commence. The State counsel informed that there were 109 prosecution witnesses to be examined. We, thus, directed the Trial Court to commence the examination of prosecution witnesses. Respondent No.1 was directed to cooperate with the trial and remain present in the Court on the date of hearing. (c) On 31.07.2023, an order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Trial Court was brought to our notice, which revealed that CW1 to CW3 (Appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. He also made a submission to the effect that Respondent No. 1 hardly spent a few months in custody and was enlarged on bail soon after, overlooking the heinous nature of the offence committed and the fact that Respondent No. 1 could influence the vulnerable witnesses with his money and muscle power. 18. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Narender Hooda, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 very passionately urged that barring the offences under Sections 302, 450, and 454 IPC, all other offences are bailable in nature. Relying upon Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2012) 1 SCC 40] and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 694] , he submitted that the seriousness of the charge is not a test or factor while considering a bail application. He maintained that Respondent No. 1 has never misused the concession of bail and there is no cogent evidence produced so far by the prosecution linking Respondent No. 1 with the unnatural death of his wife. He emphasised that once the High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to Respondent No.1, this Court should not interfere with it. C. ANALYSIS: 19. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings. C.1 THE REMEDIES IN LAW: C.1.1 CANCELLATION OF BAIL 22. Where, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court is satisfied that there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances indicating misuse of concession of bail, it becomes imperative upon the Court in the interest of justice to withdraw such concession forthwith. 23. The expression "cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail" has been wellillustrated by this Court in a catena of decisions including Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] , which are: (i) Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abusing or attempt to abuse the concession of bail granted; (ii) Possibility of the accused to abscond; (iii) Development of supervening circumstances impeding upon the principles of fair trial; (iv) The link between the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the societal impact on the Court's interference. 24. In Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr. [(2021) 15 SCC 518] , this Court explained the impact of supervening circumstances developing post the grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us that the unusual and surprising events that have happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for an effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial. This Court is vested with vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only under Article 142 of the Constitution but also under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereafter 'CrPC'), be it on the request of the prosecution or suo moto. Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. A person can be called and examined though not summoned as a witness, or can be recalled, or reexamined so as to throw light upon the imputations. Section 311 CrPC, of course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution's case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused. The exercise of power under this provision is intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather overwhelming evidence to scoop out the truth. 29. In the case at hand, the family members of the Deceased are the most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by the prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
