PRAMILA DHAWAN Vs. STATE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this petition, Petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 18th March, 2009, which reads thus:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that from the above referred order, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge granted bail to the Respondent No. 2 only on the basis of settlement and not on merits of the case. The Court, while granting bail, also made it clear that in the event of Respondent No. 2 defaulting in making payment as per payment schedule agreed by the parties, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through various orders passed by this Court in the present petition and submitted that even during the pendency of this petition, the Respondent was given ample opportunity to pay the amount of arrears accumulated due to the default committed by him but Respondent No. 2 has failed to make the payments and till date, he has paid only a sum of Rs.11.5 Lakhs to the Petitioner and her son-in-law, which is much less than the amount due as per the schedule of payment and Respondent No. 2 has also failed to transfer the shares in the name of the son-in-law of the Petitioner, which he had agreed to transfer as per the terms of settlement which formed basis of the bail order. Learned Counsel submitted that since Respondent No. 2 obtained bail by misrepresenting to the court that he would make payment as per the terms of settlement and after reaping benefit of bail, has failed to make payments as per the payment schedule, his bail is liable to be cancelled.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that it is settled law that once an accused is granted bail in a criminal matter, the power of cancellation of his bail is to be exercised with due care and caution and ordinarily, the bail once granted should not be cancelled unless there are strong grounds to believe that the accused has abused the benefit of his release on bail by interfering in the administration of justice in any manner. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in the matters of Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1995 1 SCC 349and Delhi Admn. v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 CrLJ 950.