Sandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 1 September, 2017

CRM-M-30391-2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-30391-2017
Date of decision: 1.9.2017

Sandeep Kaur
…Petitioner

Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr.Sushil Sharma, Advocate for
Mr.Harinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
****

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

By filing the present petition under Section 439 (2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought cancellation of

anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 26.7.2017 (Annexure P-3) in

case First Information Report No. 53 dated 23.6.2016, registered under

Sections 406 498A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar

Raikot, District Ludhiana.

It is contended that the petitioner is a victim of harassment

at the hands of respondent No.2 and his family members. Despite the fact

that that the dowry articles remain to be recovered, the respondent was

allowed anticipatory bail by learned trial Court. In the same set of facts,

the bail of the mother-in -law of the complainant was declined by learned

trial Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

1 of 3
09-09-2017 18:27:10 :::
CRM-M-30391-2017 2

the case file.

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu

Yadav and Anr., 2004 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 254: 2004 (7) SCC 528,

Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under:-

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter or
course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need
to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from
non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court
granting bail to consider among other circumstance, the
following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.”

A three-member Bench of this Court in State (Delhi

Administration) V. Sanjay Gandhi 1978 (2) SCC 411 made the

following elemental distinction in defining the nature of exercise while

cancelling bail:

“Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing;

2 of 3
09-09-2017 18:27:11 :::
CRM-M-30391-2017 3

cancellation of bail already granted is quite another, it is
easier to reject a bail application in a nonbailable case than
to cancel a bail already granted in such a case.
Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a
decision already made and can by and large be permitted
only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to
retain his freedom during the trial.”

In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to

substantiate the fact that respondent No.2 is misusing the concession of

bail granted to him.

In Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana, JT 1995

(1) S.C. 127, it has been held that the bail granted to the accused should

not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. There is no dispute with regard

to the proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

The consideration for the cancellation of bail is totally different than the

one for granting the bail. Such consideration should be weighty and

strong, leaning towards the prosecution and the injuries suffered by the

aggrieved party. No material or circumstance has been brought to the

notice of this Court, which could be a ground to cancel the bail. In the

circumstances, no case for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

1.9.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No

Whether reportable? Yes / No

3 of 3
09-09-2017 18:27:11 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *