Babban Giri v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons namely, respondent no. 2 i.e. Garvesh vide order dated 16.09.2020, respondent no. 3 i.e. Sunil Gupta vide order dated 04.08.2020, respondent no. 4 i.e. Praful Kumar vide order dated 05.10.2020, respondent no. 5 i.e. Abhishek Kumar, respondent no. 6 i.e. Sandeep Kumar Samal, respondent no. 7 i.e. Sunil Gupta vide orders 14.10.2020, and respondent no. 8 i.e. Dilip Kumar vide order dated 29.10.2020, in FIR No. 400/2018, registered at Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) on the ground that the accused persons are threatening and abusing the complainant and her relatives.

2. The FIR in this case was registered on 07.12.2018, on the complaint made by the wife of present petitioner, whereby it was alleged that her three daughters had been kidnapped on 04.12.2018 by the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accused persons are violating the conditions imposed upon them by the learned Trial Court while granting them regular bail. It is argued that the petitioner and his family is victim of circumstances and the crimes committed by the respondents herein, who are victimizing the petitioner and his daughters. It is stated that on 14.06.2020, the accused persons had attempted to burn the petitioner’s house by pouring petrol on the main gate. It is also submitted that another FIR No. 705/2020 was registered on 10.07.2020,on the complaint lodged by petitioner’s wife, on allegations that her two daughters had gone missing and that there have been several instances on which the accused persons have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is also pointed out that one more FIR was registered on 05.02.2021 on the complaint of petitioner’s wife as her minor daughter had gone missing. It is also argued that present petitioner was falsely implicated in one case under Sections 323/354/376D/506/34 of IPC, by wife of one of the accused. It is submitted that the accused persons are misusing the liberty granted to them by the learned Trial Court and that they are a threat to the complainant and her family. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail granted to the accused persons be cancelled.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the complainant/petitioner has been making false allegations against the accused persons, solely with the motive of getting their bails cancelled. It is further stated that since their release on bail, the accused persons have neither contacted the complainant nor any of her family members. It is further stated that the complainant herein had filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the co-accused persons herein which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2020 on the ground that the complaints made by the complainant contained only general allegations against the accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that PCR calls made by the complainant had been answered and upon conducting enquiry, no evidence was found to register a case against the accused persons. It is stated one FIR has already been registered on 10.07.2020 qua the alleged incident of 30.06.2020, and one another FIR was registered on 05.02.2021 when the daughter of petitioner had gone missing.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

7. The present petition has been filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons in the year 2020 by the learned Trial Court.

8. Before considering merits of the case, this Court finds it necessary to look at the law on cancellation of bail. In this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein in was observed as under: “…30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that 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 trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:-

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner

(iv) Possibility of accused absconding

(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail

(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.

31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.