The court emphasized the need for supervening circumstances and the illustrative circumstances for cancelling bail, considering the inherent power and discretion of the Supreme Court.

ORDER : – Applicant has filed this application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2, namely Saman Basoor who was enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 17-8-2022 passed in MCRC No. 38693/2022.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant relied on paragraph-33 of judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U. P. and another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559. Paragraph-33 is quoted as under : –

“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled : – 33.1. Where the Court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. 33.2. Where the Court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. 33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. 33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. 33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. 33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. 33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Clause 33.2 and submitted that while granting bail, Court overlooked influential position of accused in comparison to the victim of abuse. It is submitted that written complaint against respondent No. 2 was made by complainant, however, police did not take any action against him and FIR which was registered was against unknown person. This shows influence and power wielded by respondent No. 2. Said fact was not taken into consideration while granting bail to respondent No. 2. It is further argued that respondent No. 2 had executed an affidavit and same was filed before concerned police station and also before Court stating therein that he is ready to marry the prosecutrix. Respondent No. 2 is marrying another girl on 18-2-2023. Attention of this Court was drawn towards wedding invitation card placed on record. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 made false promise to marry which is clear from aforesaid supervening circumstances. Respondent No. 2 was never sincere in his promise to marry the prosecutrix. Respondent No. 2 gave an affidavit that he is ready to marry prosecutrix but as soon as he was granted anticipatory bail, he is getting married to some another girl which shows that there was false promise to marry and not merely breach of promise. Learned counsel appearing for applicant has also relied on judgment passed in case of State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178. Considering aforesaid supervening circumstances and grounds mentioned in paragraph-33.2, anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 be cancelled.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 opposed the prayer of applicant and relied in case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46. In said case, it has been held that consent given by prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with person with whom she is deeply in love on promise that he would marry her on later date cannot be said to be given under misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of Code. Reliance is also placed on part of paragraph-16 in case of Gurcharan Singh and others vs. State (Delhi Administratio