Delhi High Court Mumtaz vs State Gnct Of Delhi & Anr. on 7 May, 2014Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3463/2013
Date of decision: 07th May, 2014
MUMTAZ ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Vijay Kinger & Mr.B.D.
STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents Through: Mr.Yogesh Verma, APP for the
Mr.Suhil Kr.Singh, Adv for R-2.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of respondent no. 2, Mustaqeem in case FIR No.180/2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at PS Welcome Colony, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner/complainant and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 09.04.2012. At the time of marriage, parents of petitioner spent a sum of about Rs.15 to 16 lakhs. The father of petitioner gave a cash of Rs.5,51,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty One Thousand) at the time of engagement, Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand) at the time of Lal Khat ceremony and Rs.1.05 lakhs (Rupees One Lakhs Five thousand) at the time of Vidai Milai besides jewellery articles.
Crl.M.C. No.3463/2013 Page 1 of 3 The respondent No.2 moved an application seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi vide order dated 29.05.2013. The second application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi vide order dated 06.06.2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has not returned the articles of dowry and the cash amount and therefore, respondent No.2 was wrongly admitted to bail and the bail is liable to be cancelled.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 moved an application for return of dowry articles and jewellery as per list along with the FDR of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs). The said application came up for hearing before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Courts, Shahdara, Delhi on 05.06.2013 but the petitioner/complainant refused to receive the same. The statement of petitioner was recorded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 05.06.2013. He also urges that respondent No.2 was arrested on 11.06.2013 and thereafter on 20.6.2013, an application for bail was filed before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. At the time of hearing on the said application, on 20.06.2013 respondent No.2 returned the FDR of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the petitioner.
5. Learned APP submits that the respondent/accused was arrested on 11.06.2013 and he was admitted to bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide order dated 01.07.2013. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
Crl.M.C. No.3463/2013 Page 2 of 3
6. It is a settled principle of law that 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 concession granted to the accused in any manner.
7. The bail granted cannot be cancelled on the ground which has arisen after the bail was granted. It is generally presumed that at the time of hearing of the bail application, the prosecution has raised all possible grounds which go against the accused in the matter of bail and therefore, when once bail has been granted, the bail cannot be cancelled on some circumstances which may have existed before the grant of bail.
8. The grounds for cancellation of bail and grounds for rejection of bail are two different circumstances and hence the approach of Court should also be different. At the time of hearing the bail application the Court looks at the possibilities of the violation of the bail conditions and the Court has to be more open and flexible whereas while hearing the cancellation application, the Court has to be more rigid and actual proof of violation is required.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, in my considered view, there is no ground for cancellation of bail.
10. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
MAY 07, 2014/gm
Crl.M.C. No.3463/2013 Page 3 of 3