Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 595 (RAJ)

Gajendra Singh Rajput v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-18

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—This order governs the disposal of bail cancellation application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Gajendra Singh Rajput seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent no. 2, Ranjeet Singh @ Radhey Shyam Daroga, who has been granted bail vide order dated 14th September, 2009 rendered by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the accused-respondent no.2 as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail on the ground that the learned trial court granted bail to the accused respondent no.2 on irrelevant consideration. Learned counsel contended that 28 criminal cases of alike nature under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, have been pending against the accused respondent no.2, out of which most of the cases are still pending. He has also been declared history-sheeter by two police stations. Learned counsel further contended that the accused respondent no.2 has enticed many people and amassed a lot of wealth by unfair means amounting to Rs. 1 crore. Neither he is contractor nor submitted the tender. He once gave a false affidavit that he was not a history-sheeter, whereas in contra to it, he filed a petition to get the history-sheet quashed. In the case of an accused respondent, who has been cheating public at large, bail must not have been granted to him by the court. In contra, he deserves to be prosecuted under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for furnishing a false affidavit. There is every likelihood that the accused respondent no2. may tamper with the witnesses during trial. Only 10 days back he has threatened the complainant, hence, the bail granted to the respondent no.2 deserves to be cancelled. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 286 ; Suresh Kumar Somabhai Rana vs. Ashok Kumar Haraklal Mittal & Ors. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 292 ; Kumari Suman Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 286 ; Suresh Kumar Somabhai Rana vs. Ashok Kumar Haraklal Mittal & Ors. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 292 ; Kumari Suman Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2007) 12 SCC 364 ; and Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2008) 5 SCC 66 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondent as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have stated the impugned order to be just and proper. They further contended that although the contract was in the name of the accused-respondent but it was taken by a group of persons, as they had given a power of attorney in his favour. In most of the cases, either the accused respondent has been discharged or acquitted or proceedings have been dropped by the courts. The respondent has not abused the liberty of his bail. The petitioner has not quoted any instance to prove that the respondent tampered with or endeavoured to tamper with any witness, posed any threat to the petitioner, tried to hide himself or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further submitted that the bail already granted to the accused cannot be cancelled merely for the reason that he is found to have been involved in 28 criminal cases and he is history sheeter, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kailash Chand Rana vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2009(4) WLC (Raj.) 401 = 2010(1) RLW 338. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held in umpteen cases that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether distinct from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondent has not abused the liberty of bail. The petitioner has not quoted any instance to prove that the respon-dent tampered with or endeavoured to tamper with any witness, posed any threat to the petitioner, tried to hide themselves or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. A bird's eye view of some of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court throwing light on this issue needs to be taken into consideration. 7. 6. A bird's eye view of some of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court throwing light on this issue needs to be taken into consideration. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961) has held that: “rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail appli-cation in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.” 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Dolatram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) (1) Supreme Court cases 349) that: “rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” 9. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of Smt. Rajbala vs. State of Rajasthan (2005 (1) R.C.C. 289 = RLW 2005(1) Raj. 475) as under:- “It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. 475) as under:- “It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so.” 10. It is relevant to record that no such apprehension has been shown by the petitioner that the interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice has been made or the concession of bail granted to the respondent has been abused in any manner or the respondent is likely to abscond or he shall tamper with the witnesses. No such cogent or overwhelming circumstances have been put forth which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. 11. Recently, I decided a case titled as Kailash Chand Rana vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 816/2009) vide order dated 17th March, 2009, which was of akin nature, and wherein, the accused was involved in as many as 25 criminal cases, as also he was a history sheeter, the complainant applied for cancellation of bail granted to him. This court dismissed the petition for the following reasons:- “In view of the above legal position, the bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled merely for the reason that the respondent is a history sheeter and has been involved in as many as 25 criminal cases. No apprehension, such as, has been shown by the petitioner that the interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice has been made or the concession of bail granted to the respondent has been abused in any manner or the respondent is likely to abscond or he shall tamper with the witnesses. No such cogent or overwhelming circumstances have been put forth which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted.” 12. Nowt has been brought to our notice from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. I do not find any ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. 13. Nowt has been brought to our notice from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. I do not find any ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. 13. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail being bereft of merits and devoid of substance stands dismissed.