Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 600 (RAJ)

Rajarani Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

2013-03-20

NISHA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. bail cancellation application has been filed under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 in FIR No.28/2011 Police Station-Khandar, Sawaimadhopur. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the bail has been granted to respondent no.2 on 31.5.2011 vide S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5154/2011. After getting the anticipatory bail, the respondent no.2 has threatened the witness Surendra Singh son of Abhey Singh. Report to this effect has been lodged by Surendra Singh. On the said report, a complaint under sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C has been filed against the respondent no.2 and further his contention is that there is other cases pending against the respondent no.2 and this fact has not been disclosed before the court, hence granted bail should be cancelled. 3. Per contra, contention of respondent no.2 is that other pending cases are not a relevant consideration while dealing with the petition for cancellation of bail and a false report of threatening to Surendra Singh has been lodged against the respondent no.2 as the relatives of Surendra Singh is in Police and the complaint under section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C is still under consideration before the competent court, hence, bail should not be cancelled on this ground as cancellation of bail is a harsh order and lightly the liberty of an individual cannot be snatched away. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order and annexures annexed with the file. 5. The first contention of present petitioner is that other cases are pending against the respondent no.2 and the annexure 5 has also been placed on record which suggests that most of the cases mentioned in the list are of years from 1976 to 1997 and one case is of 2002 and other case is of 2004 whereas the present FIR has been lodged against respondent no.2 in 2011 and hence pending cases has no bearing on the present case. Furthermore the other cases are pending against the respondent no.2 is not relevant consideration under the petition for cancellation of bail and reliance has been placed on AIR 1987 SC 149 Raghubir Singh and others v. State of Bihar wherein relevant consideration for cancellation of bail order has been explained by the Apex Court. Furthermore the other cases are pending against the respondent no.2 is not relevant consideration under the petition for cancellation of bail and reliance has been placed on AIR 1987 SC 149 Raghubir Singh and others v. State of Bihar wherein relevant consideration for cancellation of bail order has been explained by the Apex Court. Hence the contention of the present petitioner that other cases were also pending against the respondent no.2, hence the bail order should be cancelled is not acceptable. 6. The other contention of the present petitioner that the respondent no.2 has threatened the witness and a complaint has been filed to this effect before the competent court. Mere assertion or allegation of alleged threat cannot be made basis of cancellation of bail as a routine otherwise there would be ample scope for making such allegations to nullify bail granted. Nothing has been stated that on 25.6.2011, what occasion has arisen to threaten the witness Surendra Singh and he has not lodged report against the respondent no.2 and only Rajrani who is complainant in the present case has lodged the complaint and looking to this fact mere allegation of alleged threat does not carry weight for the purpose of cancellation of the bail order. 7. The other contention of respondent no.2 that FIR has been lodged by the A.En. (JWNL),Khandar, the present petitioner Rajrani has no locus standi. To answer the contention, the present petitioner has stated that on his report annexure-1 this FIR has been lodged and a narration to this effect has also been incorporated in the FIR itself. 8. Looking at the above that pending cases are not relevant consideration for cancellation of bail and no case has been made out that respondent no.2 has threatened any witness and the matter is still pending with the concerned authority and furthermore the fact that impugned order is for granting anticipatory bail and admittedly now charge-sheet has been filed and respondent no.2 has been enlarged on regular bail then the bail order is for all practical purposes has become inoperative. There is no force in the petition which is liable to be rejected and is rejected.Petition dismissed. *******