Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1487 (MP)

Ashok Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-11-18

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2014
JUDGMENT : Subhash Kakade, J.:- In a case arising out of Crime No. 62/2014 registered at Police Station, Khurai, District Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B/34of IPC under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter in short "the Code", this Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2-Sheel Kumar vide order dated 5-6-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7141/2014 and directed that respondent No. 2 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer. By filing this application, the applicant-Ashok Singh seeks cancellation of above mentioned anticipatory bail order. Above mentioned crime is registered on the complaint lodged by applicant-Ashok Singh regarding the kidnapping of his 16 years aged niece. It is specifically alleged against the respondent No. 2 that being brother-in-law of the main accused-Surendra Tiwari and other two co-accused Amit Tiwari and Sudarshan Tiwari provided help for abducting the minor prosecutrix and also provided shelter. The applicant has also preferred to file a writ petition (Habeas Corpus). Vide order dated 14-2-2014 passed in W.P. No. 2711/2014, the Writ Court directed the respondent No. 1/State to file report with respect to the tress out the minor prosecutrix and produced the corpus before the Writ Court. 2. Shri P.S. Tomar, learned Counsel for the applicant on the strength of above facts submitted that the prima facie offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC is made out against the respondent No. 2, who willingly provided shelter to the accused Surendra Tiwari, hence, enlarging the respondent No. 2 on anticipatory bail vide order dated 5-6-2014 was erroneous and requires cancellation. Learned Counsel for the applicant also stressed on the point that the order dated 14-2-2014 of the Writ Court is suppressed by the respondent No. 2 during the proceedings of anticipatory bail, hence, order dated 5-6-2014 be cancelled. 3. Per contra, Shri B.J. Chourasiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that after due appreciation of collected prosecution evidence, anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No. 2, hence no question arises for cancellation. 4. 3. Per contra, Shri B.J. Chourasiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that after due appreciation of collected prosecution evidence, anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No. 2, hence no question arises for cancellation. 4. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and after perusal of the record and below mentioned legal proposition in this regard, I find that there is no scope for cancellation of granted anticipatory bail order for the respondent No. 2. 5. The power of cancellation of bail vested in the High Court can be invoked by the State or by any aggrieved party. The power can be exercised suo motu by the High Court, any person of the public who has a concern in the matter can also move to the High Court for the cancellation of bail. Even an informant can move petition for cancellation of bail. A de facto complainant can also file petition for cancellation of bail. 6. Hence, present application moved by the applicant for cancellation of granted bail is proper one. 7. The order for cancellation of bail may be passed mainly on the following grounds:-- (1) When the accused is found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial. (2) When the person on bail commits similar offences or any heinous offence during the period of bail. (3) When the accused has absconded and trial of the case gets delayed on that account. (4) When the offence so committed by the accused had created serious law and order problem in the society and accused had become a hazard on the peaceful living of the people. (5) If the High Court finds that the Lower Court granting bail has exercised its judicial power wrongly. (6) If the High Court or Sessions Courts find that the accused has misused the privilege of bail. (7) If the life of the accused itself be in danger. 8. It is well-settled that the consideration applicable to the grant of bail and consideration for cancellation of such an order is independent and do not overlap each other. 9. (6) If the High Court or Sessions Courts find that the accused has misused the privilege of bail. (7) If the life of the accused itself be in danger. 8. It is well-settled that the consideration applicable to the grant of bail and consideration for cancellation of such an order is independent and do not overlap each other. 9. The 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. Rejection of bail stands on one footing and cancellation of bail stands on a different footing and is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to. The power of cancellation of bail should exercise with care and circumspection and only in proper cases, as cancellation of bail jeopardise the personal liberty of the individual. 10. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. 11. The cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner. Bail once granted to an accused should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. 12. It is easier to refuse an application for bail in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted by a Court. Certain circumstances should exist in order to take this step. Grounds for cancellation of bail should be those, which arose after the grant to bail and should be referable to the conduct of the accused while on bail. While considering an application for cancellation of bail the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances, which would reflect that the liberty granted to the accused has been misused. 13. Accused's conduct subsequent to the grant of bail application and supervening circumstances alone are mainly relevant. If a bail has been granted illegally or improperly by erroneous and arbitrary exercise of discretion the same is liable to be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances. 14. Grounds mentioned in memo and raised elaborately at the time of arguments by learned Counsel for the applicant for cancellation of bail order does not indicate any adversity regarding subsequent misconduct of respondent No. 2. 14. Grounds mentioned in memo and raised elaborately at the time of arguments by learned Counsel for the applicant for cancellation of bail order does not indicate any adversity regarding subsequent misconduct of respondent No. 2. Where there is no violation of terms of order granting bail/anticipatory order, the cancellation of bail is not justified. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 rightly pointed out that the fact of writ of habeas corpus was specifically mentioned before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai at the time of passing rejection order dated 29-4-2014 and nothing was suppressed. Any other fact of violation of grant of anticipatory bail order is not pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Hence, this application for cancellation of granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2-Sheel Kumar vide order dated 5-6-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7141/2014 by this Court having no merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.