Dismissed

Anju Kumari v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Apr 2024CRMPM/1296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 439(2) CrPC to cancel bail granted to the accused. The court examined allegations of threats made by the accused post-bail. Finding no material on record establishing a violation of bail conditions and no supervening circumstances rendering bail unconducive, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of bail granted to the accused is dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Anju Kumari Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MP (M) No.1296 of 2023 Reserved on : 05.04.2024 Decided on : 20.04.2024

Anju Kumari

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another

¶8

.…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

____________________ For the petitioner:	____________ Mr. Virender	_____________________ Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Navlesh General wit Sharma and Advocates No.1/State.	Verma, Additional Advocate h Ms. Sunaina, Mr. Rohit Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy General, for respondent
	Mr. Sanjeev with Mr.	Bhushan, Senior Advocate Rajinder Singh Thakur,
	Advocate, for	respondent No.2.

¶13

________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶14

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner

¶15

under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC)

¶16

for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 (accused) by

¶17

this Court vide order dated 13.03.2023 in case FIR No.08 of

¶18

2023, dated 27.02.2023, registered against him at Women

¶19

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

¶21

Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, SC & ST Act) and Sections 376, 377 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶22

As per the petitioner, respondent No.2/accused, after obtaining the anticipatory bail from this Court started giving threats to her by himself as well as through his known persons and also started making telephonic calls because he was trying to defame her. On 24.04.2023 at about 10.25 pm, one of the friends of respondent No.2, namely, Manoj called her telephonically and respondent No.2 was on conference calls, who gave her threatening to withdraw the FIR in question, otherwise he would upload her edited photographs on social media, therefore, she reported the matter to the police, but the police did not co-operate.

¶23

Respondent No.1/State filed reply to the petitioner, wherein it has been averred that the matter was enquired by SHO, Women Police Station, Baddi and CDR/ CAF were obtained. From the perusal of mobile No.9318726408 of Mahajan Singh alias Manoj, it was found that multiple vice-versa calls were made between the mobile of the petitioner and said Mahajan

¶24

¶25

Singh prior to and after the registration of the FIR. It was also found that many calls were made between the mobile numbers of the petitioner and respondent No.2 prior to registration of FIR till 13.03.2023, but after that no communication was found to be made between them. The investigation of FIR in question was conducted by SDPO, Baddi and final report/challan was presented in the Court on 20.04.2023, which is pending trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh.

¶26

Respondent No.2 also filed reply to the petition, wherein, it has been averred that he has not violated any terms and conditions as stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner is trying to create undue pressure upon him. The police investigated the matter and found no material against him, however, it has been found that the petitioner herself made phone calls and Whatsapp messages to the replying respondent after grant of bail, but as he did not pick-up her phone calls, she was blackmailing him to accept her demands. It has been denied that he made phone call to petitioner through his friend Manoj and submitted that the present petition as well as the complaints were filed by the petitioner in connivance with said Manoj, who is very close to her.

¶27

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 and also carefully gone through the material available on record.

¶29

It is a settled law that cancellation of bail requires altogether a different consideration than granting of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. In Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted, has to be dealt with and considered on different basis. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶30

“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 cancellation 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…….”

¶31

¶32

In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others, (2011) 5 SCC 296 , the Hon’ble Supreme in para 23 of the judgment observed as under :-

¶33

"It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardstick for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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."

¶34

Thus, the factors relevant for grant of bail are

¶35

different and approach required to be adopted while considering application for cancellation of bail is different. In the instant case, the petitioner has alleged that after obtaining the order of anticipatory bail, respondent No.2 started giving threats to her by himself as well as through his known persons and started making telephonic calls to her, pressurizing her to withdraw the FIR or else he would upload her edited photographs on social media.

¶36

6 9. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1/ State,

¶37

it has been averred that after receiving the complaint from the petitioner, the matter was inquired by SHO, Women Police Station Baddi and CDR/CAF of mobile numbers were obtained, wherefrom it transpired that Mobile No.9797963631 belonged to Rajesh, son of Shri Prem Singh, resident of Tehsil Ra m, District Ghanot Doda, Jammu & Kashmir and Mobile No. 93187-26408 belonged to Mahajan Singh, son of Sh. Sunder Singh, resident of Chaloni Jamla, 71, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. On perusal of CDR of Mobile No. 97979-63631, it was found that a call was made from this mobile on the mobile of the petitioner on 30.03.2023 and said Rajesh told that he did not know the petitioner and was working in Rajasthan. He further told that sometimes his fellow labourers used his mobile and he had no knowledge that who made a call on the mobile of the petitioner on 30.03.2023. During the enquiry, it was also found that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were known to Mahajan Singh alias Manoj since long and many calls were made between the mobile numbers of petitioner and respondent No.2 prior to the registration of FIR till 13.03.2023, but after that no communication was found to be made between them. Copy of the inquiry report

¶38

¶39

is annexed as Annexure R-1. It has further been averred that charge-sheet under Section 173, Cr.PC was put in Court against respondent No.2 on 20.04.2023 and the matter is pending trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarhon 20.04.2023. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the allegations leveled against him have been denied. It has been averred that he has not violated any of the conditions as stipulated in the order passed by this Court on 13.03.2023. It has further been averred in the reply that the police has investigated the matter and no material has been found against him. However, to the contrary, it has been found that the petitioner herself made certain phone calls and Whatsapp message to him after grant of bail, but he did not pick up her phone calls and no responded to her Whatsapp message. It is the petitioner who is blackmailing him to accept her demands.

¶40

10. Therefore, from the perusal of the material available on record, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 had violated any of the conditions as stipulated in the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by this Court. Moreover, no material has been placed on record either by the petitioner or respondent No.1/State that respondent No.2 has violated any of the conditions at any point

¶41

¶42

of time, rather in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present application. As this Court has assigned reasons for granting the bail and the petitioner has not committed any act thereafter warranting cancellation of bail, the question of cancelling the bail does not arise. Thus, looking to the above exposition of law and also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition for cancellation of bail deserves

¶43

to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶45

( Sushil Kukreja ) April 20, 2023 Judge ( VH )

Anju Kumari v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Kumari v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Pradeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Neel Dhiman Vs State of Hp

Kewal Singh Vs State of Hp

Ankush Sharma Vs State of Hp

Ajay Kumar Vs Harjot Singh Sehgal

Jagdish Chand Vs Priyanka Sharma