Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Subsequent Involvement Of Accused On Bail In Similar Cases Amounting Regular Harassment Of Complainant A Witness, Warrants Cancellation Of His Bail.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Smt. Veena Verma Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 10/08/2010 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 18501 OF 2009
CORAM : Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 22

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 18501 Of 2009

Petitioner :- Smt. Veena Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Brijesh Sahai,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Sm.G.Asghar

Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Smt. Veena Verma, Moved This Application Praying For Cancellation Of Bail Allowed To Respondent No.2, Sanjay Chaudhari Vide Order Dated 5.6. 2009 Passed By Sri Suresh Kumar Srivastava, Learned Sessions Judge, Budaun And To Reject His Bail Bonds In Case Crime No. 04/2009, Under Sections 386, 511, 506, 509 I.P.C And 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun.
2. I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Applicant As Well As Learned Counsel For Respondent No.2 And Learned A.G.A On Behalf Of Respondent No.1, State Of U.P.
3. It Is Contended On Behalf Of Applicant That The Applicant Had Lodged The First Information Report 0n 25.4.2009 At Case Crime No. 04/2009, Under Sections 386, 511, 506, 509 I.P.C And 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun Stating Therein That The Respondent/ Accused Working As Manager In Urban Co-operative Bank, Badaun Fraudulently Got Signed Some Blank Papers From The Applicant In Respect To Loan Advanced To Her For Construction And Thereafter He Started Harassing Her And Her Husband Thereby Threatening To Commit Their Murder And Further Sending Some Obscene SMS To Her From His Mobile And Commenting Obscene Comments On Her. The Accused Started Blackmailing Her Thereby Threatening To Make Pubic The Obscene Recordings Of Her On His Phone. The Accused Demanded A Sum Of Rs.8 Lacs From Her, Failing Which He Will Commit The Murder Of Her And Her Husband And Will Make Public SMS On His Phone. The Accused Is Notorious, Influential And Having Dominanency In The Locality And Criminal Antecedents Against Him. There Remained On Record The Clinching Evidence Against The Accused Making Him Positively Involved In Committing The Aforesaid Crimes But Ignoring The Evidence, The Learned Sessions Judge Arbitrarily And Wrongly Granted The Bail To The Accused Vide Impugned Order Dated 5.6.2009. After Release On Bail, The Accused Is Intimidating/influencing The Witnesses Of The Case Including The Applicant Thereby Giving An Open Threat That Whosoever Shall Depose Against Him, Will Be Killed.
4. It Is Further Submitted That In The Aforesaid Case Crime No.04/2009 The Investigating Officer Has Filed The Charge Sheet On 30.12.2009 Against The Accused In The Court Of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun For The Offence Under Section 386, 511, 506, 509 And 376 I.P.C And Section 67 Information Technology Act. It Is Also Contended That Previously On 22.9.2008 Too, The Accused Was Found Indulged With The Applicant For The Offence Under Sections 420,352, 506,354 And 294 I.P.C In Case Crime No.2062 Of 2008 Registered Against Him Wherein For The Offence Under Section 294 I.P.C, He Was Enlarged On Bail With This Condition That He Had Not To Repeat Such Offence. On 8.7.2009 Again A Case Is Registered Against The Accused At Case Crime No.1517 Of 2009. Again In Another F.I.R Dated 13.9.2009 Too, The Accused Was Found Committing A Major Incident At Case Crime No. 267 Of 2009. On 28.9.2009 Too, The Accused Was Again Found Involved In Another Criminal Activities At Case Crime No. 2692 Of 2009. Thus, The Accused Had Misused The Impugned Bail Order Dated 5.6.2009 By His Involvement In Criminal Activities In A Routine Manner Notoriously And Professionally In His Criminal Back Ground.
5. Learned A.G.A On Behalf Of State Of U.P. Supported The Case Of The Applicant Thereby Contending That The Respondent No.2 Is Harassing, Torturing And Blackmailing The Applicant By Different Ways For Which The Applicant Had Lodged Three First Information Reports Against The Accused. The Accused Frequently Used To Call The Applicant Even In Odd Hours Of Night, Threatening Her For Dire Consequence And Sending Her Indecent MMS And Threatening To Run Her Indecent Video Even On All Crossing Of District Badaun. After Being Released On Bail, The Accused Has Misused The Liberty Of Bail And Again Indulged Himself In Committing Similar Type Of Offence Regarding Which The Case Crime No. 1517 Of 2009 Was Registered Against Him. In Case Crime No. 2062 Of 2008 For The Offence Under Sections 420, 352, 506, 354, 294 I.P.C, The Charge Sheet Against The Accused Was Submitted For The Offence Under Sections 294 I.P.C,. In Fact On The Pretext Of Sanctioning Loan To The Husband Of The Applicant, The Accused Had Developed Sexual Relationship With The Applicant And Got Her Some Indecent Video Prepared And Started Blackmailing The Applicant. The Investigating Officer After Due Investigation On The Basis Of Evidence Collected Found The Offence Under Section 376 I.P.C Too Committed By Accused And Submitted The Charge Sheet Against The Accused For The Offence Under Section 376 I.P.C Also.
6. There Is No Counter Affidavit Filed On Behalf Of Accused. However, It Is Contended On Behalf Of Accused That The Impugned Order Is Correct And Is Very Much Perfect In The Eyes Of Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case And There Is No Misuse Of The Bail Allowed To The Respondent No.2. The Entire Prosecution Cases Are Concocted Against The Accused And, Therefore, The Impugned Order By Which The Bail Is Allowed To The Accused Does Not Deserve To Be Cancelled.
7. In The Light Of The Aforesaid Contentions Of Both The Parties, The Facts And Circumstance On Record, I Have Gone Through The Entire Facts And Circumstances Of This Case. The Law Relating To Cancellation Of Bail Is Very Much Well Known That The Parameters For Grant Of Bail And Cancellation Of Bail Are Entirely Different As Has Been Laid Down The Law By Hon'ble The Supreme Court In Several Cases Regarding Cancellation Of Bail. This Is Also The Law Laid Down By Apex Court That In A Case On The Facts And Circumstances, If Two Views Are Possible, Once The Bail Has Been Granted, Should Not Be Cancelled And There Is No Scope For Cancellation Of Bail On Re- Appreciation Of Evidence Except In The Circumstances If The Accused To Whom The Bail Is Allowed Is Found Involved Attempting To Temper With The Evidence And To Interfere With And Sidetrack The Investigation And Threatened The Witnesses. The Re-appreciation Of The Evidence On Which The Bail Was Granted Is To Be Avoided By The Court Dealing With An Application For Cancellation Of Bail Under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C And Whether Irrelevant Materials Were Taken Into Consideration Is Not To Be Considered. In The Case Of Pooran Singh Vs. Rambilash And Another (2001) 6 SCC 338. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Has Held That It Is To Be Kept In Mind That The Concept Of Setting Aside The Unjustified, Illegal Or Perverse Order Is Totally Different From The Concept Of Cancelling The Bail On The Ground That The Accused Has Misconducted Himself Or Because Of Some New Facts Requiring Such Cancellation.
8. Sub-section 2 Of Section 439 Cr.P.C Gave Powers To The High Court Or To The Court Of Sessions To Cancel The Bail Granted To Any Person By Itself To Arrest Him And Commit Him To Custody. Though The Consideration Of Cancellation Of An Order Of Bail Are Independent To The Considerations Applicable To The Grant Of Bail And Do Not Overlap Each Other, But If There Are Allegations Of Tampering The Evidence, Threatening The Witnesses Or Misusing The Liberty Granted, The Application For Cancellation Of Bail Is Liable To Be Allowed.
9. Here In This Case Before This Court, It Is Very Much Relevant To Note That The Accused Is Found Involved In A Series Of Crime With The Applicant Even After The Day He Was Enlarged On Bail In Case Crime No. 04 Of 2009 For The Offence Under Sections 386, 511, 506 And 509 I.P.C And Section 67 Information Technology Act. Earlier Too, The Accused Was Found Involved In Two Criminal Cases Committing The Crime With The Applicant. After Getting Bail In Case Crime No. 04 Of 2009 On 5.6.2009 The Accused Continuously Is Found Involved Thereafter Too In Three Cases Registered At Case Crime No.267 Of 2009, Case Crime No.1517 Of 2009 And Case Crime No. 2692 Of 2009 Which Shows That The Accused Has Misused The Liberty Enlarged To Him For Remaining On Bail Thereby Committing The Offence Regularly, Harassing The Complainant Who Is Witness Against Him. Though I Do Find Merely It Too It Sufficient Ground For Cancellation Of The Bail Of The Accused But One More Fact Too For Cancellation Of Bail Is Available On Record As The Accused Has Been Charge Sheeted For The Offence Under Section 376 I.P.C Too In The Same Case Crime Number, In Which He Was Enlarged On Bail Merely For The Offence Under Sections 386,511, 506 And 509 I.P.C And Section 67 Information Technology Act. The Impugned Bail Order Can Not Be Extended For The Accused To Remain On The Bail As Subsequently The Heinous Offence Is Found Committed By Him In The Same Case Crime And The Charge Sheet Has Been Submitted. Therefore, This Bail Cancellation Application Deserves To Be Allowed. Hence The Bail Order Dated 5.6.2009 Passed In Bail Application No. 1212 Of 2009 Thereby Enlarging Bail To Accused Sanjay Chaudhary In Case Crime No.04 Of 2009, Under Sections 386, 511, 506 And 509 I.P.C And Section 67 Information Technology Act Is Hereby Cancelled.
10. Let The Accused Be Taken Into Custody Forthwith. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun Is Hereby Directed To Comply With The Order Accordingly.

Go to Navigation