Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1577 (JHR)

Md. Junaid Alam v. State of Jharkhand

2019-09-11

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
ORDER : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner with a prayer for cancellation of bail of the opposite party no. 2 granted vide order dated 6.3.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 1013 of 2019. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no. 2 who was the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 1013 of 2019 has misled this Court by submitting at the time of hearing of the said A.B.A. No. 1013 of 2019 that the petitioner is not a signatory to the agreement between the complainant and the accused no. 1 of the case and on this sole ground the petitioner of this criminal miscellaneous petition seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 1013 of 2019 vide order dated 6.3.2019. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, drawing attention of this Court to page nos. 14-15 of the brief in which respectively the paragraph nos. 5 & 6 of the complaint filed by the petitioner which has been registered as complaint case no. 2662 of 2014 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, has been mentioned submits that in the complaint itself, the petitioner has mentioned categorically that the accused no. 2 who is the opposite party no. 2 to this criminal miscellaneous petition and petitioner of A.B.A. No. 1013 of 2019, did not sign the agreement in-spite of several requests and since it is admitted case of the petitioner of this criminal miscellaneous petition that in the complaint itself, the opposite party no. 2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition has not signed the said agreement, now it is not open for the petitioner to take a diametrically opposite stand and contend that the petitioner has signed the agreement which is contradictory to the averments made in the compliant which upon being forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., this F.I.R. has been lodged. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of misusing the bail which is mandatory in law for cancellation of bail. Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the petitioner ought not to be cancelled. 4. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of misusing the bail which is mandatory in law for cancellation of bail. Hence, it is submitted that the bail granted to the petitioner ought not to be cancelled. 4. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, (2014)10 SCC 754 that generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. Of course these grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. 5. Now coming to the facts of the case, the circumstances brought on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner-accused and in the absence of any allegation of misusing the bail by the opposite party no. 2 and in view of the fact that in the complaint itself the petitioner of this case has mentioned in no uncertain words that the opposite party no. 2 has not signed the agreement, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 who was the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 1013 of 2019 be cancelled. 6. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.