The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for candid disclosure of relevant and material facts when seeking anticipatory bail, as well as the need for substantial evidence to support allegations of violation of bail conditions.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in Crl.Misc. Nos. 4211/2021 and 4212/2021 dated 06.05.2021 passed by the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No. 1-State and learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court is that, anticipatory bail is obtained by the Respondents by suppressing true facts. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the affidavits filed by the son and daughter of the Petitioner, wherein they have stated that there is a threat to them and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos. 12, 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed by her son and paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit filed by her daughter.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would also submit that, in the operative portion of the order passed by the Trial Court in condition No. 3, it is specifically mentioned that "the Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the concerned I.O". In spite of such specific direction was given, the Respondents are repeatedly making phone call and causing threat to the complainant as well as her children. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers Under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., for cancellation of bail.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in support of his argument, brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 10, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the party must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 would submit that the Trial Court, after considering the gravity of the offence and also the allegation made in the complaint, rightly granted the anticipatory bail in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and subsequently, the same is also modified extending the time due to Covid-19 Pandemic reasons and all the formalities were completed in the month of July, 2021 itself. The counsel also submits that the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. While filing the charge-sheet, also invoked the offence Under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC though several other offences are invoked in the FIR. The counsel would also vehemently contend that detailed statement of objections is filed countering the several allegations made in the petition.

7. The counsel would further submit that the Respondents have not violated any conditions imposed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail. The affidavits filed by the daughter and son is only at the instance of the complainant. There is no material on record to evidence the fact of causing threat and no such document is placed before the Court.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram And Others v. State Of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, wherein the Apex Court has held that cancellation of bail already granted, have to be dealt with on different basis and not like granting bail.

9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hazari Lal Das v