IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of bail – An application for cancellation of bail is different from an application for grant of bail – Personal liberty is one of cherished constitutional freedoms.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.—This application has been filed under Section 439(2) CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondents No.2 to 5 by order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Patiala House Court in Bail Appl Ns 836/2021 and 837/2021 emanating from FIR No. 73/2021 registered at PS Naraina for the offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.

2. The complainant gave a complaint against her husband Varun Soneja, respondent No.2 herein, father-in-law Parveen Soneja, respondent No.3 herein, mother-in-law Kiran Soneja, respondent No.4 herein and brother-in-law Karan Soneja, respondent No.5 herein, for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.

3. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that pursuant to her marriage to Varun Soneja, respondent No.2 herein, who is the son of the respondent No.3 and 4, she has constantly been harassed by her in-laws. It is alleged that all the articles given to her by her parents were taken away from her by her mother-in-law. It is also alleged that her father-in-law attempted to rape her and has outraged her modesty. She alleged that her brother-in-law had outraged her modesty. On the said allegations, FIR No.73/2021 for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC was registered.

4. Apprehending arrest, the respondents herein filed an application under Section 438 CrPC praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The complainant appeared through her lawyer in the proceedings. The order dated 04.06.2021 records that it is admitted by both sides that stridhan articles as admitted by the respondents No.2 to 5 have been returned. However, the counsel for the complainant submitted that substantial jewellery of more than Rs.3 crores have not yet been returned. This was recorded in the order dated 04.08.2021. The chargesheet has been filed.

5. On 06.08.2021 also there has been a specific allegation made by the counsel for the complainant therein that a substantial portion of the jewellery articles of more than Rs.3 crores has not been returned. It is also stated that only one locker of the husband of the complainant was searched and that too after the husband of the complainant had already operated the locker and removed the jewellery. It has also been stated that the lockers of the other three accused were not searched for the reasons best known to the investigating agencies. The said order also quotes the relevant portion of the reply of the I.O. wherein different dates have been given regarding the operation of the lockers. The said reply also notes that the complainant was requested a number of times to provide bills of jewellery articles/dowry articles but sufficient bills have not been provided on the ground that the complainant does not have all the bills/documents.

6. Considering all the aspects, the learned Trial Court after observing that the I.O. had accepted the accused persons have joined investigation on many occasions; the fact that certain documents of stridhan articles claimed were not supplied by the accused persons despite notice under Section 91 CrPC; no articles of the complainant were found in the lockers of the accused; no ITR of the complaint’s father for the relevant period was supplied; stridhan articles admitted by the accused have been returned to the complainant; BMW car in question has been returned to the complainant; and on the statement of the I.O. that no custodial interrogation of the accused is required in the matter and that chargesheet has already been filed, granted bail to the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the grievance of the complainant that the matter has not been investigated fairly or that the investigating agencies have acted in connivance with the accused could be addressed by moving the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and it is for the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to order further invest