The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of bail, breach of bail conditions, and the possibility of pressurizing witnesses in non-compoundable offenses, leading to the cancellation of bail.

ORDER : – This application under section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for cancellation of bail to the respondent No. 2 which was granted to him by this Court by order dated 21-7-2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 35904/2022.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present application in short are that respondent No. 2 is facing trial for offence under sections 305, 354-D, 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 11, 12 of POCSO Act in Crime No. 116/2021. The allegations against the respondent No. 2 are that the respondent No. 2 and co-accused Virendra @ Lalu Sharma and his Bhabhi Smt. Rubi Sharma were pressurizing the minor deceased to marry respondent No. 2. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2 used to talk to the deceased and he too was pressurizing the deceased that in case, if she does not agree for marriage, then he would upload her recorded conversation as well as photographs with the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that ultimately, the minor prosecutrix committed suicide and the aforesaid offence was registered. Since the respondent No. 2 was in jail from 20-3-2021, therefore, by order dated 21-7-2022 he was granted bail.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that after the release of the respondent No. 2 on bail, he and co-accused Lalu Sharma @ Virendra are constantly pressurizing the applicant to enter into a compromise and, accordingly, on 5-8-2022 at about 10 in the night, they both came in front of house of the applicant and started pressurizing him to enter into compromise and when it was refused by the applicant, then respondent No. 2 and the co-accused Lalu @ Virendra Sharma started abusing him and the co-accused Lalu @ Virendra Sharma fired two gunshots in air and threatened that today he has fired in air and in case he does not agree for compromise, then the applicant and his family members would be killed. Accordingly, the police has registered Crime No. 818/2022 for offence under sections 195-A, 254, 336, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 after getting released on bail had made one video viral and was using abusive language and was alleging that he has stayed in a jail for one year and three months and nobody could cause any loss to him and now he would go to jail after killing lot of persons. The applicant has also made a complaint to CSP, Morena in this regard. It is also the case of the applicant that respondent No. 2 is a person of criminal in nature and one offence, i.e., Crime No. 240/2020 has been registered against him in Police Station Civil Line, District Morena for offence under sections 323, 324, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the trial arising out of Crime No. 116/2021 is going on and all the material witnesses have not been examined so far. Mahendra was given up by the prosecution, but thereafter, an application under section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed and the same has been allowed and Mahendra has not been examined so far. Respondent No. 2 and the co-accused are pressurizing the applicant and his family members to enter into compromise.

4. Respondent No. 2 has filed his reply and stated that on 10-9-2022 the applicant has lodged a false FIR in Crime No. 818/2022 in Police Station Civil Line District Morena for offence under sections 195-A, 294, 536, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that mere lodging of FIR does not mean the commission of offence and unless and until, charges are framed, it cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are prima facie true. It is further submitted that the material witnesses have already been examined in trial arising out of Crime No. 116/2021. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that even prior to lodging a false FIR in Crime No. 818/2022, respondent No. 2 had already given representation to the police authorities, in which he had specifically alleged that the complainant and his family members are giving threats