Priya Khurana v. The State

1. The instant petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicant/complainant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Arpit Chadha vide order dated 18.12.2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi ('learned ASJ') in case FIR bearing no. 525/2019, registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/377/34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and setting aside the said order.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that marriage between the complainant and the accused/respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 9.04.2017, after which the respondent and his family members had allegedly started harassing and torturing her for demand of dowry. Thereafter, the complainant had got the present FIR registered against the accused and his family members, alleging harassment for demand of dowry and on the allegations that her husband used to make unnatural physical relations with her against her will.

3. The accused persons including respondent no. 2 were granted anticipatory bail vide impugned order dated 18.12.2019 by learned ASJ, which has been challenged before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the anticipatory bail was granted to the accused without applying judicial mind at the initial stage of investigation, and without considering that allegations against the accused are serious in nature and that his being released on bail will adversely affect the trial. It is further stated that the accused has not been co-operating in the investigation after being enlarged on bail.

5. Learned APP for the State, however, submits that the accused had joined the investigation pursuant to grant of anticipatory bail and had returned all the dowry articles which were in possession of the accused. It has further argued that the accused is not involved nor convicted in any criminal case previously.

6. Arguments have been heard on behalf of both sides and material on record has been perused.

7. Since the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, it will be relevant 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..."