Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 1018
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Nirmal Singh, J.
Rain Kumar Malhotra
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 20570 of 2001,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 14, 2001
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and should not be done in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances.
Headnote:
Bail Cancellation - Criminal Law - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - [Sanjay Gandhi case (AIR 1978 SC 961), Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana (All India Criminal Law Reporter 1995(1) SC 1)] - The court discussed the principles for cancellation of bail, emphasizing that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for such cancellation. It highlighted that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order cancelling his bail, which was granted in a case involving allegations of forcibly taking possession of an office and looting goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bail cancellation was done without sufficient reason and in a mechanical manner, overlooking the guidelines provided by the Apex Court.
Issues: The main issue was the cancellation of bail based on allegations of threatening a witness and misusing the concession of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for the cancellation of bail, and that it should not be done in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances.
Final Decision: The petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the order granting bail to the petitioner was restored.
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside of order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Ambala whereby the bail earlier granted to the petitioner in RC- 6(5)/98/Sill-V/SIC-II/C.B.I. dated 5.6.1998 in a case titled C.B.I. v. Chander Bhatia and others was cancelled.
2. On the written complaint of Mamta Arora a case was registered on 7.10.1997 in police station NIT Faridabad. The relevant part of the complaint reads as under :
"It is submitted that I, Mamta Arora, am Editor of Rashtriya Janadesh Bureau (a newspaper) and running in 5 D/8A, NIT Faridabad. Legislator Chander Bhatia, brother Rajesh Bhatia, nephew Navin Bhatia and eight other persons have forcibly taken possession of our office and looted goods worth Rs. 68 lacs along with our office, our Summo vehicle, scooters as well as Rs. 42,000/- in cash which was lying in the almirah. Legislator Chander Bhatia was also with them. Our two security personnel, namely Titu (Narinder) and another have been kidnapped and taken away by them. We do not have any information about their well being. Even earlier, Chander Bhatia Legislator, Bunti son of Ram Sharan Bhatia, Advocate Ram Kumar Malhotra and others were extending threats to our lives. We have conveyed the information to the administration about the same. Kindly take legal action against the accused. Our goods and our employees be got returned to us."
The petitioner was also arrayed as an accused. The petitioner moved an application for bail before Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ambala. The same was dismissed vide order dated 2.5.2001. The petitioner applied for bail before Special Judge, Ambala who vide order dated 8.5.2001 allowed bail.
3. K.K. Jhanji moved an application Annexure P-5 before Special Judge, Ambala on 16.5.2001 on the ground that the petitioner has threatened him for dire consequences and that he will show his power and requested that the bail of the petitioner may be concelled. The petitioner filed reply Annexure P-6 to the application and the learned Special Judge, after hearing the petitioner and counsel for the complainant as well as the counsel for the C.B.I. cancelled the bail order on the ground that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail, aggrieved by which, the present petition has been filed.
4. Shri R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. The allegations levelled against Chander Bhatia, Rajesh Bhatia, Navin Bhatia and eight other persons were that they have forcibly taken possession of the office of Mamta Arora complainant and looted goods worth Rs. 68 lacs and have taken away the articles from the office including Summo vehicles, Scooters as well as Rs. 42,000/- in cash. He submitted that in the FIR the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that prior to the occurrence dated 7.10.1997 petitioner along with Chander Bhatia, Bunti son of Ram Sharan Bhatia, Advocate, Ram Kumar Malhotra and others were extending threats to the lives of Mamta Arora and others. He submitted that K.K. Jhanji was not a witness to the occurrence. Learned Special Judge, after going through the record of the case rightly allowed bail to the petitioner. He submitted that K.K. Jhanji moved an application before the Special Judge for the cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner has threatened him. He submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner to go to the house of K.K. Jhanji. The entire story has been concocted by the him. He submitted that the petitioner filed reply to the application for cancellation of bail moved by K.K. Jhanji and denied the allegations. He also pointed out that the petitioner is a practising Advocate for the last more than 30 years and is law abiding person. He also pointed out that the allegations levelled in the complaint are vague. There is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner has threatene
