PRADEEP RAJA G Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dated 5.12.2018, the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Mis.No.322/2018 by partly allowing the application filed by the complainant praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the said Court to accused Nos.1 to 6 on 10.4.2018, cancelled the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3. Accused Nos.1 and 3, being aggrieved by the said cancellation of anticipatory bail to them, preferred Criminal Petition No.9194/2018, whereas being aggrieved by non-considering of the prayer of the complainant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6, the complainant has preferred Criminal Petition No.9216/2018.

(2.) I have heard Smt. Sheetal Soni, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 3-petitioners in Criminal Petition No.9194/2018; Smt.Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for accused-respondents in Criminal Petition No.9216/2018; Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for the respondent-State and the complainant/party-in-person, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.9216/2018.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the order passed by the trial Court canceling the anticipatory bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3 is erroneous. Without considering the legal position, the trial Court has swayed away by the submissions made by the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. She further submitted that there is no breach of any of the conditions imposed while granting the anticipatory bail. Without any breach of the conditions by accused Nos.1 and 3, the trial Court ought not to have cancelled the bail granted to them. She further submitted that there are no allegations as against any of the accused to show that they have threatened the witnesses. It is the counsel who has uttered some words and the matter was taken to the Police Station by the complainant, where in the presence of the complainant the said complaint was closed. The said aspect which has been relied upon by the trial Court is not justifiable. She further submitted that the Investigating Officers and incharge Officers of the Police Station have filed their affidavits to the effect that all the accused persons including accused No.3 used to attend the Police Station as per the conditions and have marked their attendance. But in spite of the same, the trial Court has ventured to compare the signatures with that of vakalat and has come to a wrong conclusion that the signature found in the Register is not tallying and as such accused No.3 has not attended the Police Station. By referring to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, she further submitted that the trial Court ought not to have compared the signature with its eyes and expressed its opinion. She further submitted that although there is no legal bar to a judge using bare eyes to compare the signatures without the aid of the expert, as a matter of prudence and caution, the judge hesitates to base his finding with regard to the identification of the signatures which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case solely on comparison made by himself. In order to substantiate her contention, she relied upon the decision in the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs.Pali Ram, 1979 AIR(SC) 14. She also relied upon the decision in the case of O.Bharathan Vs. K.Sudhakaran & another, 1996 AIR(SC) 1140. She further submitted that during the course of investigation, if the Investigating Officer has not apprehended the accused and there is no evidence to show that the witnesses have hampered the evidence though they were having best opportunity, these facts are to be considered while considering the bail application. After filing of the charge sheet usually the Court cannot cancel the bail when there is no material to show that there is tampering of the evidence. In order to substantiate her contention, she relied upon the decision in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, 2018 AIR(SC) 980. She further submitted that rejection of the bail in a nonbailable offence is different from cancellation of the bail so granted. Very cogent overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. Usually the Courts will not interfere with the bail granted and cancel mechanically without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to cancel the bail. In order to substantiate her contention, she relied upon the decision in the case of Dolat Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 1 SCC 349. She further submitted that a separate petition is not maintainable for the purpose of cancellation of bail. Already the Court which has passed the order becomes functuous officio to entertain a separate petition. If at all any application has to be filed, it should be filed in a same petition. The parameters which are to be taken into consideration by the Court have been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said parameters have to be followed by the Court. In order to substantiate the said contention, she relied upon the decisions in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Singh & another, 2003 AIR(SC) 4377 and in the case of Rajesh Sharma & others Vs. State of U.P. & another, 2017 AIR(SC) 3869. She further submitted that the Court should not go for cancellation of the bail and such tendency of the parties has to be discouraged. She further submitted that the photographs which have been produced are only to rebut the allegations made as against the accused and they have been produced in a judicial proceeding. No prejudice or hardship has been caused and they have not been produced to defame the complainant. On these grounds, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in Criminal Petition No.9216/2018 and the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 3-petitioners in Criminal Petition No.9194/2018 prayed to allow the petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 by granting bail to them and dismiss the petition filed by the complainant.