By the order impugned, the High Court has proceeded to cancel the bail granted to the appellant by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena, in the order dated 05.08.2021, as passed in Bail Application No. However, thereafter, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the sister-in-law of the deceased on 02.11.2020 and then, the Trial Court granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law of the deceased on 18.11.2020. 357/2021) moved on behalf of the appellant was considered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena and was allowed on 05.08.2021, essentially with reference to the facts pertaining to the grant of pre- arrest bail to two of the co-accused persons and regular bail to the other co-accused–husband of the appellant. In the impugned order dated 10.02.2022, the High Court took note of the allegations and the fact that the appellant was arrested only on 16.07.2021 i.e., approximately ten months after the death of the deceased and seven months after filing of the charge-sheet against co-accused persons; and in fact, she surrendered only after her husband was granted bail.
The High Court reproduced all the contents of the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police as regards the steps taken in the matter and other corrective steps being taken on the administrative side.
In challenge to the order so passed by the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High Court has taken a too stern a view of the matter but has not considered that there was no question of the appellant absconding or running away from the process of 5 law, which could be seen from the facts that successively, the applications seeking pre-arrest bail were moved on her behalf.
Learned counsel would submit that in the given circumstances, the appellant surrendered before the Court after her husband was granted bail and in the distressed condition of the family, her omission to surrender earlier could not have been regarded as an act of absconsion. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–State has duly opposed with the submissions that the Sessions Court had been unjustified in granting bail to the appellant, and in the given set of circumstances, when the appellant was not traceable even until filing of the first 6 charge-sheet on 13.12.2020, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be wholly unjustified so as to call for interference, more particularly looking into the nature of accusations. Further, the fact that the appellant is a lady in 55 years of age cannot be ignored, particularly 7 when examining the question of grant of regular bail. In our view, even if the High Court had its reservations in the order so passed by the Trial Court granting bail to the appellant, particularly when the fact of long absence of the appellant was not adverted to, it was yet required to be taken note of by the High Court that the power being exercised was not that of a regular appeal or revision but, it was that of cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC.
In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this appeal succeeds and is allowed; the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 as passed by the High Court is set aside and the 9 order dated 05.08.2021 as passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena is restored.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-jurisdiction-in-re-appraising-arbitrators-findings/
JUSTICE
DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR.
REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/contrary-directions-in-issuance-of-letter-of-intent/
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file] 11
Case Title: BHURI BAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2022 INSC 1325)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001972-001972 / 2022
