State v. Satyadeoprasad

1. By this order. I propose to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner i.e. the father of the deceased under section 439(2) read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) for seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned ASJ in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the brother in law of the deceased and his wife vide orders dated 20.7.2011 and 30.7.2011. 2013:DHC:6653

2. The impugned orders dated 20.7.2011 and 30.7.2011 were passed by the learned ASJ on the basis of the order dated 5.4.2011 granting bail to the father in law of the deceased and the order dated 1.4.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court granting bail to the mother in law ofthe deceased.

3. Aiguing the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ld. Trial Court did not take into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence. Counsel also submits that the Ld. Sessions Judge also did not give any ^ opportunity to the petitioner before granting the said bail. Counsel also submits that the Ld. Trial court passed the impugned order merely on the basis of the order of the ^Lligh Court granting bail to the mother in law of the deceased without applying its mind as the mother in law and father in law of the deceased, who used to stay in Bihar, cannot be placed on the same footing as the respondent nos. 2 &3, who used to stay with the deceased in the same house. In support ofhis arguments counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments; ^ ' h.;^ubodh Kumar Yadav v. State ofBihar, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 600

3. Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna Jaiswal and Anr., 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 529

4. Opposing the present petition, counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have not misused their liberty after the grant of regular bail. Counsel also submits that these respondents were granted bail after they have surrendered % ? before the Trial Court and prior to that their anticipatory bail applications were rejected. Counsel also submits that the bail in favour of these respondents was granted' by the Ldi Sessions Judge after the grant of bail by..t.he High Court, in favour of the mother in law. In support of his arguments counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Devender Kumar & Am v. State ofHaryana & ors., 2010 Cri LJ3849

2. Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed v. Mehmood Hussain & Anr., VI (2007) SLT594

3. State ( Govt, ofNCT ofDelhi) v. Dr. Anil Khetrapal, 2006 (2) CC Cases (HQ 297

4. Rashmita v. State & ors., 2012 (3) JCC1531

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments advanced by them.

6. Narrating brief facts of the present case, marriage between the deceased and her husband took place on 1.6.2009. On 25.6.2010 at about 10.30 a.m., information was received from Vinayak Hospital, Delhi that a lady residing in Burari has been brought dead. The parents of the deceased reached Delhi from Bihar on 26.7.2010 and their statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and consequently, an FIR u/s 498A/304B/34 was registered against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and other. ac:„used persons on the basis of such statements.

7. The relevant portions of the statement of the mother of the deceased were that she had married her daughter to Prafiil Kumar one year ago, that Prafiil Kumar used to beat the deceased to such an extent that blood would ooze out from her body, that the deceased used to make complaints of such incidents to her on telephone, that the deceased had called her on phone on 25.67.2010 at around 8-9 a.m. and stated that her husband had beaten her. The father of the deceased also stated the same things. He further stated that the father of his son-in-law used to call him up on phone, that he even wanted to meet him and demanded money number of times, that he also threatened that in case goods were not given then >1, their,daughter would be killed, that besides the husband of the deceased, his elder brother, sister in law, nephew and the second brother also used to beat the deceased.

8. According to the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of-Smt. Phulsari.Devi, the maid-servant working at the residence of the deceased, the husband of the deceased used to regularly beat his wife on trivial issues and gave beatings to the deceased in the morning ofthe date ofincident.

9. It is a settled law that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether ^ different from the parameters of cancelling the bail already.granted. While.. observing that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary to be prove.d by the applicant in order to seek cancellation of bail, the Apex Court observed in para 4 of its judgment in the case of Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, that i "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 caiicellation 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..."

10. While rejecting the appHcation for the grant of cancellation of bail, the Apex court obsei-ved in another case, namely, Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed v. Mehmocd Hussain A anr, VI (2007) SLT 594) that: