The court clarified the distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside a bail order, emphasizing that cancellation requires supervening circumstances while setting aside challenges the merits of the bail decision.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

This order will dispose of aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of regular bail granted to private respondent(s) vide orders dated 21.07.2022 and 22.08.2022 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in FIR No.152 dated 23.03.2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Dabua, District Faridabad, Haryana.

2. The petitioner is the father of the victim, whose marriage was 09:56 solemnized with Prem Pal on 09.12.2021 according to hindu rites and ceremonies. As per the prime stand of the petitioner (herein), the private respondent(s) along with their family members used to torment and threaten the deceased; in connivance with each other has hanged the deceased to death and hence an FIR ibid got registered by him.

3. Vide impugned order dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, the respondent No.2-Gulkandi was granted regular bail; relevant whereof reads as under:

"After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that petitioner is a lady aged about 68 years. Main accused Prem Pal i.e., husband of the deceasaed is already in custody. It is also not disputed that in the present case, the deceased died due to hanging. However, it is a moot point whether she committed suicide because of demands of dowry or cruelty thereof at the instance of present petitioner or otherwise, which will be decided at the finality of the trial. Investigation has been completed and police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on 20.05.2022. The present petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2022 and no useful purpose would be served by further confining her in judicial custody as the completion of the trial would take time. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, cannot be ignored at this stage. "

3.1 Vide order dated 22.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, the respondent No.2-Teeka Ram was granted regular bail; relevant whereof reads as under:

"After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased. Main accused Prem Pal i.e., husband of the deceased is already in custody. Co- accused Gulkandi (mother-in-law) has already been released been released on bail by this court vide order dated 21.07.2022. It is also not disputed that in the present case, the deceased died due to hanging. However, it is a moot point whether she committed suicide because of demands of dowry or cruelty thereof at the instance of present petitioner or otherwise, which will be decided at the finality of the trial. Investigation has been completed and police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on 20.05.2022. The present petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2022 and no useful purpose would be served by further confining him in judicial custody as the completion of the trial would take time. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, cannot be ignored at this stage. "

4. The afore-said orders dated 21.07.2022 and 22.08.2022 have been challenged by the petitioner (herein)-complainant in CRM-M-47078-2022 & CRM-M-47173-2022 respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the private respondent(s) ought not to have been granted the concession of regular bail by the Sessions Court since there were serious allegations against the said respondent(s). It has been further argued that private respondent(s) are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased and there are specific allegations with regard to demand of dowry as also giving beatings and hence the Sessions Court ought to have dismissed the regular bail petition(s) filed by the private respondent(s). It has been further argued that the petitione