Cancellation of bail requires substantial evidence of misuse or supervening circumstances; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient.

ORDER :

(Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.)

This is an application filed by the defacto prosecutrix/victim in FIR No.10/2023 dated 07.01.2023 registered at Police Station – Bamhani, District Mandla (M.P.) to cancel the bail granted to the accused in the above crime. The accused is the second respondent in this application.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/victim, the learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/accused.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/victim that as per order dated 16.08.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23496/2023, this Court granted bail to the second respondent/accused in FIR No.10/2023 dated 07.01.2023, registered at Police Station Bamhani, District Mandla (M.P.) subject to conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. It was made clear that in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions, the bail order shall become ineffective. It is submitted that respondent No.2/accused is continuously threatening the applicant/victim after coming out of jail and pressurizing her to compromise and withdraw the case. It is contended that she attempted to file a complaint with Bamhani Police Station, but the Police did not register the FIR and just recorded NCR under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. It is stated that on 14.10.2023, at around 11.p.m., the accused reached the prosecutrix’s house with a sword in his hand and threatened her to withdraw the case. When she made a call to Police, the Police reached at the spot and arrested the accused and registered a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, FIR No.502/2023 dated 14.10.2023 was registered. He was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, but despite opposition of the applicant/victim, the Trial Court released him on bail. It is further submitted that she moved an application before the Trial Court on 16.10.2023 to forfeit the bail bonds of the respondent No.2/accused and send him to jail but Trial Court i.e. POCSO Court has not taken any action so far. The accused is married, having three kids and is 28 years old. After release on bail, respondent No.2 has threatened and abused her. He has disturbed her mental peace. Therefore, it is prayed that bail order dated 16.08.2023 granting bail to the accused be cancelled and he be committed to jail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that second respondent herein is involved in one other case after his release on bail. Therefore, order granting bail be cancelled.

5. Opposing cancellation of bail, learned counsel for accused/second respondent submitted that the second respondent did not violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court. It is submitted that prosecutrix has already been examined before the trial Court long back on 22.06.2023 and till now four witnesses have been examined. Hence, when prosecutrix has already been examined on 22.06.2023, the respondent No.2 had no reason to abuse and threat her on 10.10.2023 and 13/14.10.2023. It is contended that despite issuance of coercive processes by the Trial Court, rest of the witnesses are deliberately not appearing before the Trial Court and just to pressurize the respondent No.2, false complaints have been made against him. N.C.R. (Annexure A/3) has been lodged by prosecutrix on 10.10.2023, complaining that on 29.09.2023 Prahlad Nageshwara came in front of her house and was threatening to beat. In so far as FIR dated 14.10.2023 (Annexue A/4) is concerned, in it, it is mentioned that accused was threatening to victim and her father to change their version before the Trial Court. As the prosecutrix has already been examined long back on 22.06.2023, accused/respondent No.2 had no reason to threat them to change their evidence before the Trial Court as victim evidence has already been recorded. The application for cancellation of bail has been filed without any cogent and sufficient grounds, therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the same.

6. The only