UMA AARSAY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of M.Cr.C. No. 6362/2001 filed on behalf of the petitioner (State) so also M.Cr.C. No. 5981/2001, filed on behalf of Uma Aarsay, the complainant, as in both of these petitions, the order of grant of anticipatory bail to these respondents which are dated 28th September, 2001 and 1st October, 2001 are sought to be set aside.

(2.) BY separate orders dated 28 -9 -2001, Special Judge, Hoshangabad, granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and by order dated 1 -10 -2001 to respondent No. 1, in respect of Crime No. 81/2001, registered at Police Station Anusuchit Jati, Anusuchit Janjati Kalyan, Hoshangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (xiv) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, making following observations : - - ....Vernacular Text Ommited....

(3.) AFTER a consideration of various earlier pronouncements on the point of cancellation of bails under Section 439(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, it is found dictated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Puran v. Rambilas and Anr., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2023 that : - - 'The concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation.' It is further found explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Puran v. Rambilas (supra) that 'Generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of the nature like bride burning and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court has to be corrected.'