Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 89 (KAR)

Rekha Singhal v. State of Karnataka

2022-01-21

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in Crl.Misc. Nos. 4211/2021 and 4212/2021 dated 06.05.2021 passed by the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No. 1-State and learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court is that, anticipatory bail is obtained by the Respondents by suppressing true facts. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the affidavits filed by the son and daughter of the Petitioner, wherein they have stated that there is a threat to them and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos. 12, 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed by her son and paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit filed by her daughter. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would also submit that, in the operative portion of the order passed by the Trial Court in condition No. 3, it is specifically mentioned that "the Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the concerned I.O". In spite of such specific direction was given, the Respondents are repeatedly making phone call and causing threat to the complainant as well as her children. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., for cancellation of bail. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in support of his argument, brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 10, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the party must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 10, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the party must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 would submit that the Trial Court, after considering the gravity of the offence and also the allegation made in the complaint, rightly granted the anticipatory bail in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and subsequently, the same is also modified extending the time due to Covid-19 Pandemic reasons and all the formalities were completed in the month of July, 2021 itself. The counsel also submits that the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. While filing the charge-sheet, also invoked the offence Under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC though several other offences are invoked in the FIR. The counsel would also vehemently contend that detailed statement of objections is filed countering the several allegations made in the petition. 7. The counsel would further submit that the Respondents have not violated any conditions imposed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail. The affidavits filed by the daughter and son is only at the instance of the complainant. There is no material on record to evidence the fact of causing threat and no such document is placed before the Court. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram And Others v. State Of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , wherein the Apex Court has held that cancellation of bail already granted, have to be dealt with on different basis and not like granting bail. 9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hazari Lal Das v. State Of West Bengal And Another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 . 10. 9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hazari Lal Das v. State Of West Bengal And Another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 . 10. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramcharan v. State Of M.P. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 617 . 11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahant Chand Nath Yogi and Another v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 1 SCC 326 . 12. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in: 1993 CRI L.J. 251. 13. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, referring these judgments would vehemently contend that the cancellation of bail is a serious matter and it affects the personal liberty of a person and the same cannot be exercised, unless strong material for such cancellation is placed before the Court. 14. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record i.e., the pleadings in the petition and also the statement of objections, particularly the FIR, it is seen that, at the first instance, the case was registered for the offence punishable Under Sections 498-A, 403, 405, 415, 463, 420, 319, 351 and 120(A) of IPC. Admittedly, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet invoking the offence Under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. 15. The Court, while canceling the bail has to keep two aspects in mind i.e., one with regard to obtaining bail order suppressing the material facts and if the Trial Court passes an capricious or perverse order, then, the Court can invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and another is that, if Accused violates any of the conditions imposed in the order passed while granting bail. Under such circumstances, the Court can invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. 16. The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner before this Court is that, by suppressing the material facts, the Respondents have obtained the anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, the Court can invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. 16. The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner before this Court is that, by suppressing the material facts, the Respondents have obtained the anticipatory bail. I have already pointed out that the offences which have been invoked against the Respondents herein particularly, Section 498-A of IPC is with regard to matrimonial dispute and Section 420 of IPC is with regard to the transaction which has taken place between the parties during the marital life of the Petitioner and her husband. 17. No doubt, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that this Court did not exercise the powers Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the relief was sought for quashing the complaint registered against the Respondents herein, while considering the petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has come to the conclusion that matter has to be probed by the Investigating Officer regarding the allegations made in the complaint and it is not a fit case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, it is observed therein that, prima facie, the allegations made in the complaint has to be probed by the Investigating Officer and hence, did not invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court. 18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly brought to the notice of this Court the observation made by this Court in the proceedings Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, it is important to note that the scope of Section 482 and 438 of Cr.P.C. are different. This Court has to look into the order passed by the learned Judge in Crl. Misc. Nos. 4211/2021 and 4212/2021, wherein the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that, having considered the material on record, particularly the averments of the complaint, at this stage, there is no strong ground, so as to deny anticipatory bail to the Respondents. While granting anticipatory bail, the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint. The Trial Court also, while considering the matter on merits, particularly in paragraph Nos. While granting anticipatory bail, the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint. The Trial Court also, while considering the matter on merits, particularly in paragraph Nos. 9 to 12 has observed that it is a fit case to exercise the powers Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail. When such reasons are given by the Trial Court, while considering the scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., I have already pointed out that the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint should be the criteria for exercising such discretion. Though the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contend that the Respondents have suppressed the material fact, the suppression of said material is not placed before the Court and also not brought before the Court and hence, the question of Dalip's case (supra) is applicable cannot be accepted. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail exercising the powers Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 19. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, condition No. 3 of the order passed by the Trial Court is violated. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, even after granting anticipatory bail, the Respondents are making phone calls and threatening the Petitioner. In order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court, except the affidavits. However, only an allegation is made against the Respondents that they are making phone call and threatening her. No doubt, the son and daughter of the complainant have filed separate affidavits stating that there is a threat, no specific instances are stated and only an omnibus statement is made in the affidavits. 20. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no material on record to substantiate the fact that the Respondents have violated the condition imposed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail, hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. 20. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no material on record to substantiate the fact that the Respondents have violated the condition imposed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail, hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. It appears that the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner is nothing but a luxury and without any cogent reason, the Petitioner has approached this Court and both the Petitioner and the Respondents are making allegations against each other in a petition filed Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. which is unwarranted and the same amounts to an abuse of process. 21. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: