Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 867 (TS)

M. Sarika v. State of Telangana

2020-12-21

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2020
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.04.2019 in Crl.M.P. No. 6 of 2019 in Crime No. 39 of 2019 of I.T. Corridor Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. 2. Heard Mrs. V. Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner-de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 - State and Mr. Lasetty Ravinder, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - accused No. 1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 2 herein is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 39 of 2019. The offences alleged against him are under Section - 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent No. 2 has filed an application for regular bail vide Crl.M.P. No. 6 of 2019 before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, and the learned Court below vide order dated 30.04.2019 has granted regular bail to respondent No. 2 herein on certain conditions including the condition that he shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each. The Court below has granted bail to respondent No. 2 on the ground that the Investigating Officer has completed investigation and charge sheet yet to be filed. 4. The petitioner herein, wife of respondent No. 2 - accused No. 1, has filed the present application seeking to cancel the said bail granted to respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and his mother left the house leaving the petitioner and her child without informing her. Respondent No. 2's brother and his family remained in the very same house and used to harass her. Thereafter, they too left the house without informing her. Respondent No. 2 has disconnected the electricity and water connection. Thus, respondent No. 2 is harassing the petitioner and his infant son. Respondent No. 2 has started passing vulgar statement against her. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner that the brother of respondent No. 2 along with his relatives attacked the petitioner and her mother by breaking the glass window panes. Thus, respondent No. 2 is harassing the petitioner and his infant son. Respondent No. 2 has started passing vulgar statement against her. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner that the brother of respondent No. 2 along with his relatives attacked the petitioner and her mother by breaking the glass window panes. The same was immediately reported to the local police, who in turn came and conducted a panchanama and registered a case against brother of respondent No. 2 and others. Subsequently, elders and Sarpanch of the village called respondent No. 2 and others who were responsible for the damage caused to her house and warned them strongly. Despite the same, respondent No. 2 and his brother did not stop causing nuisance to the petitioner's peaceful living. Thus, respondent No. 2, his mother, sister and brother and also other relatives and friends are causing inexplicable hardship to the petitioner's day-to-day existence by sending unsocial elements and strangers who were trespassing into her house. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on 15.06.2019 when the petitioner attended the Court for counselling, respondent No. 2 locked the house and did not allow her to enter the house. With the help of Sarpanch of the village, she has taken shelter in the Community Hall for that night. Respondent No. 2 has disconnected the power connection and with the help of Sarpanch, the connection was restored. Respondent No. 2 and his mother have disconnected the power connection to the bore-well again, and they have also threatened the petitioner that the will kill her if she touches the bore-well. 7. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 along with his friends came on bikes, circled the house by honking in the night caused nuisance. He and his friends several times jumped over the compound wall and created nuisance in drunken condition. 8. It is further contended that during Bonalu festival, brother of the petitioner brought Saree to her and while he was about to park his car, respondent No. 2 came in another car in high speed and dashed the car belongs to the brother of the petitioner. Thus, he has damaged the said car. The same was reported to the local police, who in turn registered a case. 9. Thus, he has damaged the said car. The same was reported to the local police, who in turn registered a case. 9. It is further contended that on 16.08.2019 at about 6.00 a.m., respondent No. 2 along with his sister came to the petitioner's house and beat the petitioner and her mother black and blue and the same was reported to the police, who in turn registered a case against them. The petitioner and her mother were referred to medical examination by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed positive photographs to show that the petitioner and her mother received injuries. Thus, respondent No. 2 bent upon to put an end to the life of the petitioner and her family members. He has openly claimed that he would see the end of the petitioner and her family members at the cost of his life. 10. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 is going to extreme level and building up pressure on the petitioner so that she will agree for divorce and vacate the house. Thus, there is life threat to the petitioners. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 being police constable misusing and abusing the concession of bail granted to him in Crl.M.P. No. 6 of 2019. 11. With the above said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2. 12. Mr. Lasetty Ravinder, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that the Court below has granted regular bail to respondent No. 2 herein on the ground that the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and charge sheet yet to be filed. The Investigating Officer has already completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No. 54 of 2019. The matter stands posted for examination of accused. He would further submit that there is no allegation against respondent No. 2 herein that he has violated any of the conditions imposed by the Court below while granting bail and that he has threatened any of the witnesses and not co-operating with the Investigating Officer. 13. The matter stands posted for examination of accused. He would further submit that there is no allegation against respondent No. 2 herein that he has violated any of the conditions imposed by the Court below while granting bail and that he has threatened any of the witnesses and not co-operating with the Investigating Officer. 13. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would further submit that the petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section - 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide DVC No. 56 of 2019 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, and the same is pending. She has also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No. 144 of 2019 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District seeking maintenance. The said petition is also pending. Respondent No. 2 has filed F.C.O.P. No. 198 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and the same is pending. 14. He would further submit that the petitioner herein has complained the said facts to the Higher Officials of respondent No. 2 who in turn initiated disciplinary action against him. The officials have placed him under suspension for about three (03) months. Thus, it is the petitioner who is harassing respondent No. 2 and his family members. He would further submit that the petitioner herein has not made out any ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2. She has filed the present application with a mala fide intention to further harass respondent No. 2 and his family members. 15. The above said contentions and the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 would reveal that the Court below has granted bail to respondent No. 2 on the ground that the investigation has completed and charge sheet yet to be filed. Now, the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No. 54 of 2019. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No. 144 of 2019 seeking maintenance and the same is pending. Now, the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No. 54 of 2019. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No. 144 of 2019 seeking maintenance and the same is pending. The application filed under Section - 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide DVC No. 56 of 2019 is also pending. F.C.O.P. No. 198 of 2019 filed by respondent No. 2 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of 'cruelty' is also pending. There is no allegation in the entire petition that respondent No. 2 has violated the conditions imposed by the Court below in the order dated 30.04.2019 and there is no allegation against him that he has threatened the witnesses and interfered with the investigation and that he has not co-operated with the Investigating Officer. As stated above, the Investigating Officer has already completed investigation and filed charge sheet. 16. A perusal of the complaint in Crime No. 271 of 2019 would show that it was registered on the complaint lodged by brother of the petitioner against Muchintala Srinivas and others. Respondent No. 2 herein is not an accused in the said crime. The allegations are against brother of respondent No. 2 and others. It appears that the petitioner herein has also lodged a complaint with police on 16.08.2019 and the police have not registered any case against respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner herein has not taken any steps on the same. According to the petitioner, she has also lodged a complaint on 14.08.2020 with the Shamshabad Police Station and they have issued a receipt without registering any case against respondent No. 2. The petitioner has not taken any steps on the same in accordance with law. 17. All the above said facts would reveal that there are strained relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Several legal proceedings are pending between them in the manner stated above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 , has laid down guidelines to Courts while deciding the question of cancellation of bail already granted. Paragraph No. 4 of the said judgment is relevant which is reproduced hereunder. "4. Several legal proceedings are pending between them in the manner stated above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 , has laid down guidelines to Courts while deciding the question of cancellation of bail already granted. Paragraph No. 4 of the said judgment is relevant which is reproduced hereunder. "4. 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted." 18. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with cancellation of bail. The Apex Court by referring to several judgments held that where a Court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for it to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment. It further held that the provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by it. The Court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case by case basis. It further held that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violation of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. Bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there exist supervening circumstances or violation of conditions of bail. 19. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violation of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. Bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there exist supervening circumstances or violation of conditions of bail. 19. In view of the above stated principle, coming to the case on hand, as discussed supra, there is no allegation against respondent No. 2 herein that he has violated any of the conditions imposed by the Court below in the order granting bail to him, and there is also no allegation against him that he has threatened any of the witnesses and that he has not co-operated with the Investigating Officer. 20. At the cost of repetition, it is trite to note that the Investigating Officer has already completed the investigation and filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file and the said C.C. is posted for examination of accused. There is no allegation against respondent No. 2 that he is not cooperating with the Court below in concluding trial. As discussed supra, there are strained relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Several proceedings are pending between them. Thus, the petitioner herein failed to establish any ground that respondent No. 2 has abused the concession granted to him, much less supervening circumstance to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2. The allegations made in the complaints said to have been lodged by the petitioner require to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the present petition fails and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.