A bail granted cannot be canceled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstances unfavourable to a fair trial: High Court of Delhi
A bail granted cannot be canceled on a request from the side of the complainant or investigating agency unless and until it is established that the same is being misused and it is no longer conducive in the interest of justice to allow the accused any further to remain on bail. These were stated by Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in the case Vishal Bhutani vs. State and Anr. [CRL.M.C. 1308/2021] on 06.01.2022.
The facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Vishal Bhutani filed a complaint against Manjeet Singh (respondent no. 2 herein), Sunil Daral and Manisha Daral for forgery, cheating, trespassing, and housebreaking and other penal offences. The complainant stated that he is the owner of the property bearing No. F-193/551, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar and he purchased the same from Smt. Shilpi Gupta vide sale deed duly registered. The complainant had constructed four floors along with stilt parking at the aforesaid plot from his own resources then he entered into the agreement to sell and purchase with the alleged Smt. Manisha Daral with regard to the 3rd floor of the above said property and executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Manisha Daral for the 3rd floor of the aforesaid property. He received a total sum of Rs.1,17,00,000. Later on, he entered into the agreement to sell and purchase with the alleged Smt. Manisha Daral with regard to the 2nd floor of the above said property and executed the sale deed of 2nd floor in favour of the Smt. Manish Daral and for that he received a total sum of Rs.1,30,00,000. It was further submitted by the complainant that at the time of selling of aforesaid 2nd and 3rd Floor of the said property, some construction work was yet to be completed but the alleged persons pressurized him to execute the sale deed and further asked they would execute an another agreement in favour of the complainant for the completion of renovation work and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,00,000, in this regard, an indemnity & declaration was executed by the accused Manisha Daral and her husband Sunil Daral in favour of the complainant, wherein it was mentioned that 84 Lacs was already paid to the complainant whereas Six Post Dated Cheques against the payment of remaining 62 Lacs were issued by the accused persons. It is further submitted by the complainant that he had already sold out the upper ground floor to some other person and the 1st floor of the building was vacant and he installed his locks on the first floor. He further stated that the completion of renovation work was much before the due date and handed over the possession of 2nd& 3rd Floor to the accused persons but when the said cheques were present in bank on their due date, the same were dishonoured by the bank due to the reason of stop payment and therefore, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the accused persons.
The Counsel for the petitioner contended that while passing the impugned order on the application for grant of bail to Respondent no.2 under section 439 of Cr.P.C. treated bail matter as trial proceedings. It is further submitted that the Investigation file of the IO was not called and perused to deal with investigated facts to appreciate contentions of the parties. He further submitted that the status report of investigation in the matter has not been considered by the Learned ASJ who devised its own procedure. It is also submitted that Learned ASJ should have perused, appreciated and considered facts that co-Accused Manisha Daral has been absconding & proceedings under sections 82, 83 of Cr.P.C. is pending against her, Respondent no.2 is brother in law of Manisha Daral and brother of other co-accused Sunil Daral and thus, are family members, interfering in the investigation. It is further submitted that till date the original copy of forged agreement to sell is not produced before the IO for investigation. It is also submitted that one witness of the said forged document Mr. Darshan Sharma has already made a statement before IO that he had no knowledge about the said agreement to sell and his signature on the said document. Lastly, it is prayed by the counsel for the petitioner/complainant that bail granted to respondent no. 2 i.e. Manjeet Singh should be canceled.
The Counsel for the respondents contended that the respondent no. 2 is very much likely to tamper with the evidence/influence witnesses. However, there are no allegations against the respondent no. 2 that he ever tried to tamper with the evidence or any of the witnesses of the case had complained about by influencing them in any manner whatsoever. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has root in the society and there is no apprehension of absconding. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses and it is further submitted that accordingly the Learned A.S.J. has rightly granted bail to the respondent no. 2 after duly considering the facts of the case. It is further submitted that the cancellation can only be done in cases of supervening circumstances which are totally lacking in the present case.
The High Court of Delhi held that it is settled that once bail granted should not be canceled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstances that are not conducive to a fair trial. It cannot be canceled on a request from the side of the complainant/investigating agency unless and until it is established that the same is being misused and it is no longer conducive in the interest of justice to allow the accused any further to remain on bail. No doubt, the bail can be canceled only in those discerning few cases where it is established that a person to whom the concession of bail has been granted is misusing the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that there are no allegations of any tampering or influencing of the witnesses against respondent 2. There are also no allegations that the respondent no. 2 is at flight risk or there is any likelihood of absconding. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of supervening circumstances on the basis of which the bail granted to the respondent no. 2 could be canceled or that he is in any manner threat to a fair trial of this case. Nothing has been brought on record that the respondent no.2 in any manner has violated the terms and condition of the order granting him bail. Therefore, facts and circumstances required for an order of cancellation of bail to be passed are missing in the present case, thus the petition along with the pending application was dismissed.
Judgment reviewed by Shristi Suman. Read Judgment