IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail and bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
(2) For cancelling bail once granted, Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or conduct of accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial.

ORDER :

Hima Kohli, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal by way of special leave arises from an order dated 16 th November, 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Madhya Pradesh; at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 55343 of 2021, whereby an application filed by the respondent No. 2/accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[for short “Cr.P.C.”] has been allowed and he has been granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and certain other conditions imposed therein by the learned Single Judge in connection with Crime No. 39/21 registered on the complaint of the appellant at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[for short the “IPC”].

3. A brief recapitulation of the facts of the instant case is necessary. The allegations levelled against the respondent No. 2/accused as recorded in FIR dated 21st June, 2021 are that he had induced the appellant/complainant to establish a physical relationship with him on the false pretext of marrying her. The appellant/ complainant has stated that the respondent No. 2 has been in physical intimacy with her since July, 2019, when on applying vermillion (sindhoor) on her forehead, he had convinced her that they had got married as per Hindu rituals. Subsequently, in July, 2020 when the appellant informed the respondent No. 2 that she was pregnant, he along with his sister had taken her to a private hospital at Jabalpur and had made her consume some pills to undergo abortion, without her knowledge. It has been alleged that thereafter, the respondent No.2 started avoiding the appellant and stopped returning her calls. When confronted by the appellant, he categorically refused to solemnize their marriage. On the appellant’s complaint, the FIR was registered against the respondent No.2 on 21st June, 2021.

4. Apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed vide order dated 30th June, 2021. A fresh application for anticipatory bail was moved by the respondent No. 2 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur which was opposed by the appellant who filed objections thereto. Vide order dated 10th August, 2021 the said application was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for anticipatory bail, respondent No. 2 had approached this Court by filing a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6617 of 2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 13th September, 2021.

5. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution on 25th October, 2021. Within four days reckoned therefrom, respondent No. 2 applied before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., that was rejected by an order dated 29th October, 2021. The respondent No. 2 then moved the High Court for grant of regular bail. The said application has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 16th November, 2021. Aggrieved by the relief granted to the respondent No. 2, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal by way of special leave seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to him.

6. Ms. Shikha Khurana, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order stating that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court for granting bail to the respondent No. 2; that the High Court has erred in overlooking the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 2 and his father who are p