Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Amit Lahoti
For the Respondent : D. R. Sharma, V. D. Sharma, A. K. Nirankari

ORDER : – This application under section 439(2) of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 1 granted by the Sessions Court by order dated 29-4-2022 passed in Bail Application No. 1129/2022.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that respondent No. 1 is the father-in-law of the deceased, whereas the applicant is the father of the deceased. The deceased was married to Nitendra Kushwah on 6-12-2020 and she died under suspicious circumstances by hanging on 7-3-2022, i.e., within 1 year and 4 months of her marriage. There are specific allegations against respondent No. 1 that he was harassing and treating the deceased with cruelty for demand of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to Jethani of the deceased for the reasons that there was no reason for Jethani to demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- thereby instigating her in-laws to give similar treatment to her also. It is submitted that while granting anticipatory bail to Smt. Varsha Singh in M.Cr.C. No. 17854/2022, this Court in its order dated 18-4-2022 had specifically referred to the allegations made against respondent No. 1 of demand of Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, ignoring all these facts, the Trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 1 by merely mentioning that the case of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Smt. Varsha Singh. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that the reasons are to be assigned while granting bail and it is not a case of parity.

3. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that grounds for cancellation of bail are different from the grounds for grant of bail. There is no allegation that respondent No. 1 had misused the liberty granted by the Trial Court. To buttress his contentions, counsel for the respondent No. 1 has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana , reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 237 and Abdul Basit alias Raju and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another, reported in (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 257.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Before considering the merits of the case, this Court would like to consider the law governing principles of grant of bail. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another , reported in (2022) 6 SCC 725 has held as under : –

25. This Court has, on several occasions discussed the factors to be considered by a Court while deciding a bail application. The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are : (i) the seriousness of the offence; (ii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii) the impact of release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. While such list is not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court takes into account such factors in deciding a bail application, it could be concluded that the decision has resulted from a judicious exercise of its discretion, vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor [Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 = 1978 SCC (Cri) 115]; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 = 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 = (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] .

26. This Court has also ruled that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal, vide Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 = 2002 SCC (Cri) 688]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sark