IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Shabnam – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 2352 of 2020
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 323/354/354D/506/34 IPC - [Sections 323/354/354D/506/34 IPC] - The court discussed the grounds for cancellation of bail and the principles guiding the grant of bail, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons to revoke bail and the importance of evaluating relevant factors while dealing with bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to set aside the order granting anticipatory bail to the accused, who was charged with offenses under Sections 323/354/354D/506/34 IPC. The complainant alleged sexual assault, assault, and extortion by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order granting anticipatory bail suffered from no irregularity, illegality, impropriety, or perversity. It emphasized that the observations made in the present petition would have no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, the relevance of the complainant's matrimonial life, and the consideration of gravity and seriousness of the offense by the sessions court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compelling reasons to revoke bail, discussed the grounds for cancellation of bail, and highlighted the principles guiding the grant of bail, including the evaluation of relevant factors and the gravity of the offense.
Final Decision: The present petition was dismissed, upholding the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C") has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge, North East, Karkardooma Court in Bail Application No. 1254/2020 titled as "State v. Faisal Anwar" wherein, thecourt has granted anticipatory bail to the accused namely, Faisal Anwar, in FIR bearing No. 332/2020 registered at Police Station Seelampur("PS") for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/354D/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainants first marriage was solemnized in 1994, after 10-12 years of the marriage her husband expired leaving behind the complainant and one daughter who is 19 years old presently. Complainants second marriage was solemnized somewhere in the year 2004 and out of the said wedlock they had two daughters but in the year 2014 they got divorced. The complainant met the present accused/ respondent no.2 in the year 2017, they lived together without marriage and since then the accused had been sexually assaulting her without her consent at her residence. On various occasions the accused had also beaten the complainant and demanded money, the complainant had also made false promise to marry the complainant. On 15.08.2020, the accused was with another girl and when the complainant went to him at a parking lot near Dharampura Red Light where the accused brothers namely, Danish and Dabbu misbehaved with the petitioner and also threatened to kill her. Furthermore, on 06.09.2020 the accused entered the house of the complainant and stated that he was in need of Rs 5 lakhs and demanded Rs 3 lakhs from the complainant, upon resisting from the same, the accused thrashed the complainant and forcefully took Rs 3 lakhs. Complainant lodged an FIR against the accused herein.
3. Thereafter, an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C was moved by the accused/ respondent no.2 whereby, learned sessions court granted anticipatory bail, the concluding part of the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 reads as under:
"Initially the FIR had been lodged u/s 323/354/354-D/506/34 1PC and later on, after the statement of the complainant us164 Cr. P.C, Sections 313/376/377 IPC were also added. On being inquired, the complainant has told that she is about 36 years old andher first marriage was solemnized with one Sh. Mod. Hasib in the year 1994. After 10-12 years of marriage, he (her husband) expired leaving behind the complainant as widow and one daughter. Thesaid daughter is now 17-18 years old. Somewhere in the year 2004, she again married with one Sh. Nasimuddin with whom divorce tookplace in the year 2014 and complainant lady is having two daughtersfrom this wedlock. Thereafter, in the year 2014 itself, she entered into 3rd marriage with one Sh. Asif Khan and the said marriage ended in the year 2014 itself as stated by her. Further, somewhere in theyear 2017, she started residing with the present applicant/accused in"live-in' relationship and one day she noticed that theapplicant/accused was with some lady/girl on a bike and on beinginquired, started quarrelling with her. The complainant lady is not aware even the year in which her first husband had expired or eventhe gap between the death of her first husband and the solemnizationof her second marriage. The initial FIR also does not include any ofthe Sections i.e., 313/376/377 IPC. Admittedly she had been living with the present applicant/accused without entering into the marriage contract. It is also an admitted fact that earlier also she had lodged complaints including a complaint u/s 376 IPC against other persons including the co-brother (Saadu) of the present applicant/accused".
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since, the learned Sessions Court has failed to consider the gravity and seriousness
The court emphasized the need for supervening circumstances or overwhelming evidence to warrant cancellation of bail, and highlighted the importance of not interfering with personal liberty without s....
Cancellation of bail should not be done in a mechanical manner and should only be considered in the presence of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, as outlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Cancellation of bail should be treated differently from a bail application and should only be cancelled if strong and compelling reasons exist, as established by legal precedents and guidelines.
Bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled unless he violates the condition of the bail or does any act, deed, or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proper consideration of material on record while granting anticipatory bail and the importance of overwhelming circumstances for cance....
Non-fulfilment of the terms of a compromise cannot be the basis for cancelling bail, as per the judgments in Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Another and Amr Chouhan @ Amar Singh Chouhan ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for supervening circumstances or conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrating that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.