Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for the respondents.
This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondents vide order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act Gonda pertaining to Case crime no.58 of 2021 under sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act and section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(1)(W) SC/ST Act, P.S. Mankapur, District Gonda.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned court below while granting the bail to the accused - respondents has not considered the entirety of the matter and the accused respondents are continuously threatening the applicant with dire consequences and also putting pressure for the compromise in the present case. Thus, their bail may kindly be cancelled.
The law with regard to cancellation of bail has been well settled by a catena of judgements holding that cancellation of bail can be ordered only on stronger grounds and bail already granted should not be cancelled unless it appears that the order granting bail is arbitrary, illegal and perverse or if the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with the evidence. It is also trite law that the power to cancel bail has to be exercised with caution and great circumspection in appropriate cases.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathsingh Vs. State of Gujarat (1984) 1 SCC 284, has held as under:
"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail and the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC 362, has held as under:
"It is trite law that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings.......bail granted under Section 437 (1) or (2) or Section 439 (1) can be cancelled were (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled legal principles as cited above, this Court does not find any good ground to cancel the bail of the accused-respondents.
Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is rejected.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 VNP/-