Rohit Kumar Jha v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. The instant petition under Section 482 read with Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 3 and 4 by the court of learned Additional Special Judge, Special Court (Electricity), South-West, Dwarka Court, New Delhi vide order dated 26.10.2020 in bail application bearing nos. 715/2020 and 739/2020 in case bearing FIR NO. 485/2019, registered at Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟).

2. Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the FIR are that respondent no. 3 had initially induced petitioner to become a member of QNET company but petitioner had refused to invest any money. Thereafter, on 15.07.2018, respondent no. 3 had introduced petitioner herein to respondent no. 2 who had induced the petitioner to invest money forgetting membership of QNET company. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 had then obtained his identification cards i.e., PAN card, Aadhaar card and had obtained signatures of petitioner on blank papers. On 15.07.2018, an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- was transferred into the account of one Saurabh Saluja and one Sunny Arora with Rs. 3,00,000/- each. Upon demanding the money, respondents had threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Subsequently, on the complaint of petitioner, present FIR dated 25.09.2019 was registered. The learned Trial Court had granted anticipatory bail to respondents nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 26.10.2020.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the respondents had threatened petitioner before they were granted bail and even after they were granted anticipatory bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.10.2020. It is also stated that respondents have intentionally flouted the bail conditions. It is stated that since the respondents have not complied with the anticipatory bail conditions and have threatened the petitioner herein, anticipatory bail granted to respondents be cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have joined investigation as per the directions of the IO. It is stated that chargesheet has not been filed even after four years. It is stated that petitioner had willingly taken membership of QNET company and had willingly submitted his identification cards to respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that the membership was free of cost and did not require any sort of consideration. It is further stated that the petitioner had purchased three holiday packages in total and no amount with regard to the first holiday package was transferred or received by respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that petitioner had willingly transferred the disputed amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the account of his seniors at QNET company namely, Saurabh Saluja and Sunny Arora. It is further stated that petitioner had knowledge regarding the return/refund policy of the company. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and have perused material on record.

7. Since the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, it will be trite to discuss the law regarding cancellation of bail. In this regard, this Court takes note of the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in 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.

32. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2014) 16 SCC 508,the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under:-...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail..."