Full Text
Translation output
3# $~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 196112011 o;o
MRS. DEEPTI DUA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surender Kumar Shanna, Advocate.
MRS. DEEPTI DUA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surender Kumar Shanna, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP with Inspector Kusum Mendiratta, PS CAW Cell, East.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Issue notice.
03.06.2011 Learned APP accepts notice on behalf ofthe State.
By this petition the Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the
Respondent No.2 vide order dated 21st December, 2010.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the impugned order the
Investigating Officer had stated that no recovery is to be made from the possession of the accused and therefore no custodial interrogation of the accused is required whereas the fact of the matter is that no recovery has been effected from Respondent No.2 and his family and the istreedhan and j ewellary articles are still to be recovered from their possession. Therefore, CRL.M.C. 196112011
~----' - :! --~ 2011:DHC:11356 their custodial interrogation is essentiaL
It may be noted that after the grant of bail the Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide order dated
29th March, 2011. Learned Court noting the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner came to the conclusion that the investigating agency was of the opinion that there was no requirement of arrest of the accused, that is, the husband which culminated into no requirement of custodial interrogation of the accused/Respondent No. 2. It was observed that the arrest of the Respondent no. 2 is not required as he is cooperating with the Investigating Officer as required under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C.
The reason for this stand of Investigating Officer is because the accused is cooperating with the investigation in every manner, however, the
Complainant is not coming forward to provide bill of articles or accompany for identification ofthe articles for effecting recovery ofthe istreedhan.
Learned APP on instructions from Inspector Kusum Mendiratta, PS
CAW Cell, East, states that today also the situation is the same. The
Respondent No. 2 is cooperating in all respects however, the Complainant/
Petitioner is not coming forward to identify her articles. In fact when she
CRL.M.C. 196112011 ~ -----'..
! ) was asked to accompany for effecting recovery she stated that the mediation proceedings are going on. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the mediation proceedings have also failed.
Cancellation of bail is a serious matter. It cannot be resorted to at the whims and fancies of the Complainant. There is no allegation that the
Respondent No. 2 has either misused the concession or is in anyway interfering in the investigation. An order of cancellation of bail has to be
----'< passed only when there are very cogent and compelling circumstances and the court is satisfied that the accused is misusing the process of law. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering the supervening circumstances. Present is a case where the
Respondent No.2 is cooperating in the investigation but the Petitioner is not.
I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
Petition is dismissed.
~~AGUPTA,J.
JUNE 03, 2011 'vn'
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Issue notice.
03.06.2011 Learned APP accepts notice on behalf ofthe State.
By this petition the Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the
Respondent No.2 vide order dated 21st December, 2010.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the impugned order the
Investigating Officer had stated that no recovery is to be made from the possession of the accused and therefore no custodial interrogation of the accused is required whereas the fact of the matter is that no recovery has been effected from Respondent No.2 and his family and the istreedhan and j ewellary articles are still to be recovered from their possession. Therefore, CRL.M.C. 196112011
~----' - :! --~ 2011:DHC:11356 their custodial interrogation is essentiaL
It may be noted that after the grant of bail the Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide order dated
29th March, 2011. Learned Court noting the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner came to the conclusion that the investigating agency was of the opinion that there was no requirement of arrest of the accused, that is, the husband which culminated into no requirement of custodial interrogation of the accused/Respondent No. 2. It was observed that the arrest of the Respondent no. 2 is not required as he is cooperating with the Investigating Officer as required under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C.
The reason for this stand of Investigating Officer is because the accused is cooperating with the investigation in every manner, however, the
Complainant is not coming forward to provide bill of articles or accompany for identification ofthe articles for effecting recovery ofthe istreedhan.
Learned APP on instructions from Inspector Kusum Mendiratta, PS
CAW Cell, East, states that today also the situation is the same. The
Respondent No. 2 is cooperating in all respects however, the Complainant/
Petitioner is not coming forward to identify her articles. In fact when she
CRL.M.C. 196112011 ~ -----'..
! ) was asked to accompany for effecting recovery she stated that the mediation proceedings are going on. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the mediation proceedings have also failed.
Cancellation of bail is a serious matter. It cannot be resorted to at the whims and fancies of the Complainant. There is no allegation that the
Respondent No. 2 has either misused the concession or is in anyway interfering in the investigation. An order of cancellation of bail has to be
----'< passed only when there are very cogent and compelling circumstances and the court is satisfied that the accused is misusing the process of law. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering the supervening circumstances. Present is a case where the
Respondent No.2 is cooperating in the investigation but the Petitioner is not.
I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
Petition is dismissed.
~~AGUPTA,J.
JUNE 03, 2011 'vn'
CRL.M.C. 1961/2011 Page3 of3
____....
____....
JUDGMENT