| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/955945 |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Decided On | Mar-07-2013 |
| Judge | KAILASH GAMBHIR |
| Appellant | Neera Mehta |
| Respondent | State and anr. |
2. Counsel for the petitioner craves for the cancellation of bail on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has not given any basis for assessing the jewellery articles at Rs. 75,000/- which have not been returned by the respondents. Learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 subject to the deposit of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of the jewellery articles. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had presented dowry articles worth Rs. 5 lakhs and even the in-laws had presented jewellery articles which were not less than worth Rs. 8 lakhs. Counsel also submits that the learned Sessions Judge also failed to appreciate the rate of gold as on date of passing of the order being Rs. 32000/- per 10 gms and the said amount of Rs. 75000/- would not suffice to the worth of jewellery at hand. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions judge has not exercised the discretion on a sound principle of law and in a judicious manner.
3. Refuting the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not assigned any cogent reason for the cancellation of bail, as such, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions of law, and also relevant material available on record.
5. The law is well settled that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether different from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondent has not abused the liberty of his bail. The petitioner has not quoted any instance to prove that the respondent tampered with or endeavoured to tamper with any witness, posed any threat to the petitioner, tried to hide himself or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State v. Sanjay Gandhi : AIR 197.SC 96.has held that:
12. rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. 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.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Dolatram and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) (1) SCC 34.that:
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 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.
8. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of Smt. Rajbala v. State of Rajasthan 2005 (1) R.C.C. 289 as under: It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for the grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so.
9. Section 438 of the Code confers on the High Court and the Court of Session, the power to grant `anticipatory bail' if the applicant has `reason to believe' that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The expression `anticipatory bail' has not been defined in the Code. But as observed in Balchand Jain Vs. State of M.P, AIR 197.SC 366.that `anticipatory bail' means `bail in anticipation of arrest'. The expression `anticipatory bail' is a misnomer inasmuch as it is not as if bail is presently granted by the Court in anticipation of arrest. When a competent court grants `anticipatory bail', it makes an order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail. The Court went on to observe that the power of granting `anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is in cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his bail" that such power may be exercised. The rather unusual echelons of in nature, it is entrusted only liberty while on power to being the higher judicial service, i.e. a Court of Session and the High Court. Thus, the ambit of power conferred by Section 438 of the Code though held to be limited but scrupulously depends upon the facts of each case.
10. Coming to the facts of the present case, counsel for the petitioner has simply argued that the lower Court has granted the bail on indefensible grounds but has failed to explain as to what are those indefensible grounds which were lost sight of, by the lower Court, no misrepresentation can be attributed to the respondent as regards the number of jewellery articles to be recovered or the value thereof.
11. The only issue emerging in the petition is as to whether there are grounds available on record to cancel the bail granted to the respondent. In my opinion, the recovery of dowry articles or valuation of jewellery articles in dispute cannot be made a ground for cancellation of bail already granted to the respondent no.2 herein. Very cogent and over whelming circumstances are necessary for ordering cancellation of bail already granted , which in my opinion , are missing in the instant case. Merely arguing that the bail has been granted on untenable grounds and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to give any proper reasons for grant of such relief and also for valuation of jewellery @ Rs.75000/- is not sufficient to cancel the bail already granted. No such apprehension has been shown by the petitioner that the interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice has been made or the concession of bail granted to the respondent has been abused in any manner by showing any preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses or has misplaced such liberty granted to him. No such cogent or overwhelming circumstances have been put forth which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. For better appreciation the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Sessions judge is also reiterated below: I have heard both the sides and have perused the records. There is no dispute that various dowry articles consisting of four gold bangles, double door fridge, 29 inches T.V., dressing table, washing machine, steel almirah, double bed with mattress, sofa set, and other house hold articles have been returned by the applicant to the complainant on 31.10.2012. However, the dispute is now with respect to a few jewellery articles to which rival contentions have been raised. It is therefore, directed that the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant in lieu of the jewellery articles, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. On such payment, the applicant shall be entitled to be released on bail in the event of likelihood of his arrest in this FIR on furnishing a PB in the sum of Rs. 25000/with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO concerned.
11. Also, nothing has been brought to my notice from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. Therefore, I do not find any strong ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent.
12. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of bail being bereft of merits and devoid of essential substance stands dismissed , however, as regards the valuation of jewellery articles is concerned, the Petitioner is at liberty to raise an objection to that effect at the time of final disposal/ arguments of the petition filed before the trial court.
13. Hence, the present petition is accordingly dismissed. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J MARCH 07 2013/mg