Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2226
High Court Of Delhi
V. B. GUPTA
RESHMA W/O MOHD AKRAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE THROUGH Govt. OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Case 1199 Of 2007
Decided On : 10/01/2007
B.K.PATEL, Haneef Mohd, MOHD.MUSTAQ, NAVIN SHARMA
The court emphasized the importance of specific evidence and lack of vague allegations in deciding on the cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Threat and Cruelty - The court dismissed the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents based on vague allegations and lack of specific evidence of threat or cruelty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, alleging threat and cruelty. The respondents were granted bail after the petitioner lodged a complaint with the CAW Cell and claimed that the respondents continued to threaten her even after being released on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made by the petitioner were vague and lacked specific details of the threats or cruelty. The court also noted that there was no evidence of misuse of bail by the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled based on the petitioner's allegations of threat and cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of specific evidence and vague allegations in the petitioner's complaint and found no grounds for cancellation of the respondents' bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, as it did not find any grounds for cancellation based on the vague allegations and lack of specific evidence.
( 1 ) PRESENT petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents vide order dated 6th December, 2006.
( 2 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was being treated with cruelty by the respondents and as such a complaint was lodged with CAW Cell. The respondents returned some of the articles to the petitioner but did not return the cash and jewellery and in spite of that the respondents were admitted on anticipatory bail. After release on anticipatory bail, they had continued threatening the petitioner on telephone as well as by sending different persons to her place. Hence the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled.
( 3 ) ON the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the bail was granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for the present petitioner also. The petitioner has made vague allegations and has not specifically mentioned as to what threat has been extended by which of the respondents.
( 4 ) WHEREAS, learned counsel for the State contended that the complaint given by the complainant with regard to the threat given to her by the respondents, have been enquired and on inquiry it is noticed that the complainant has not given any specific date or time of threat.
( 5 ) THE present respondents were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 6th December, 2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and at that time the counsel for the present petitioner was also present and he opposed the bail on the ground that recovery is yet to be effected whereas, plea on behalf of the respondents was that the articles have already been returned.
( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents, who are the relatives of the husband of the petitioner were granted anticipatory bail and were directed to join investigation as and when directed. There is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the bail granted to them.
( 7 ) NOW, vague allegations have been made in this petition and furthermore, in the complaint made to the police also, no specific date or time has been mentioned.
( 8 ) UNDER these circumstances, I do not find any ground for cancellation of bail of the respondents 2 to 7.
( 9 ) HENCE, the present petition is, hereby dismissed.
