ORDER
R.C. Chopra, J.
1.
This petition under Section 482 if Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 21.4.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by which the bail granted to the petitioner vide orders dated 28.9.2000 was cancelled and he was ordered to be taken into custody.
2.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
3.
The facts leading to the filing of the present petition briefly stated are that an FIR dated 16.9.2000 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 366, 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506 IPC on the allegations that the petitioner had induced the complainant/prosecutrix to accompany him to meet some senior officer in connection with the transfer of her husband to Delhi but on the way, he assaulted her and tried to rape her. He had also allegedly held out intimidatory threats to her. His first application for bail was dismissed vide order dated 20.9.2000 but his second application for bail was allowed vide orders dated 28.9.2000. While allowing the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by the submission made on behalf of the petitioner/accused, that the complainant was blackmailer and was responsible for the suicide of a family of four at Gurgaon and was being tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.
4. An application dated 4.12.2000 was filed on behalf of the complainant for cancellation of the bail granted t o the petitioner alleging that the petitioner and his counsel had made mis-statements in regard to the prosecution of the prosecutrix and had mis-guided the Court with a view to obtain a bail order.Vide impugned order dated 21.4.2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner on the ground that at the time of arguing the second application for bail, learned counsel for the petitioner had made a mis-statement that he complainant/prosecutrix was facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and in fact divide orders dated 17.8.1999, the ACJM Gurgaon had already accepted a cancellation report. It was observed that since the complainant was not facing any trial on the date when the bail application of the accused/petitioner was argued, a deliberate mis-statement was made and head the true facts been brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the fate of his bail application would have been different. Holding the petitioner guilty of withholding true facts and presenting distorted facts, the bail was ordered to be cancelled.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there were no good and sufficient grounds for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner in as much as the considerations for cancellation of bail and grant of bail are different. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court , learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after his releases on bail, the petitioner had neither interfered with no attempted to interfere with the due course of investigations or trial. He had not impeded or attempted to evade the due course of law nor abused the concession of bail in any manner. He also argues, that the complainant/prosecutrix was actually arrested in a case under Section 306 IPC at Gurgaon and had remained in custody for about 50 days on the basis of a suicide note left behind by the family in which there were serious allegations against her. It is submitted that the accused/petitioner was in custody and as such was not in a position nor had any means to know that the case against the complainant /prosecutrix had been cancelled. It is submitted that after making enquiries about the registration of a case against the complainant/prosecutrix, her arrest and detention, the petitioner as well as his counsel had made some wrong submissions in regard to the pendency of the trial against her but these were not deliberate. However, it was a fact that a family of four had committed suicide and prosecutrix was arrested in the said case. It is submitted that the petitioner or his counsel never knew that the complainant/prosecutrix had been discharged in the case otherwise the statement regarding the pendency of the case against her would not have been made.
6.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have argued that mis-statement in regard to the pendency of the case against the complainant was deliberately made and the court was induced to pass a bail order in favor of the petitioner. It is also argued that the petitioner is involved in six other criminal cases also and by a resolution dated 26.9.2000, his removal from the membership of Delhi Cantonment Board has been approved.
7.
It cannot be disputed that the parties or their Counsel making submissions before the Courts are under a duty to make true and responsible statements and whenever it is found that an order has been obtained by making a false or misleading statement, the Court may recall an order passed in favor of a party making such a statement. However, the crucial question before the Court in such circumstances would be to find out as to whether the mis-statement was deliberately made or there was a possibility that the party making the statement did not know that the statement was false or wrong. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the party making a statement might have been mis-informed and for that reason only the statement was made before the Court a harsh view may not be taken. To the contrary, if the Court comes to a conclusion that a false statement was deliberately made to mislead the Court, the order passed by the Court relying on such a statement may be recalled. In the case in hand, the petitioner through his counsel had made a wrong statement that a case against the complainant/prosecutrix was pending in Gurgaon in as much as on the date of making the statement, no case was pending against her. However, the fact remains that the complainant/prosecutrix was involved in a case under Section 306 IPC at Gurgaon registered on account of suicide of four members of a family. It is not disputed that the complainant/prosecutrix was arrested even in the said case and had remained in custody also. Therefore, the factum of the involvement of the complainant/prosecutrix in the aforesaid case was true. The wrong statement was only in regard to the pendency of the case against her. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner and his Counsel said not know about the cancellation of the case against the complainant/prosecutrix and as such made a statement in regard to the pendency of a case against there on the basis of some wrong information given to them. It is also worth mentioning that he bail application of the petitioner on which he was ordered to be released on bail and in the course of arguments of which the aforesaid statement was made, was decided after notice to the State. Learned APP heard before passing the bail orders and as such, it was the duty of the State also to controvert any wrong or misleading statement that was being made by or on behalf of the accused/petitioner. It appears that on the said date even APP and Investigating Officer did not know about the cancellation of case against complainant. Therefore, it cannot be positively held the mis-statement in regard to the pendency of the case was made by the petitioner or his Counsel deliberately knowing that the case had been cancelled. Possibility remains that this statement was made genuinely believing that after the registration of a case against her under Section 306 IPC and her arrest, the prosecutrix was being proceeded against in accordance with law. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner or his counsel had come to know about the cancellation of the case against the complainant/prosecutrix before the date of making submissions in this regard.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judges vide impugned orders cancelled the bail granted in favor of the petitioner on no other ground except that the aforesaid mis-statement was made before the Court. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever abused the concession of bail or had tried to interfere with investigations or trial. The fact that he is involved in some other cases or that he has been removed from the membership of the Cantonment Board cannot be taken as grounds for cancellation of bail. The law is well settled that bail once granted should not be cancelled without there being some compelling reason to do so. Quite compelling reasons are required to be brought on record for cancellation of bail. This power of extra ordinary nature should not be invoked lightly to curtail the liberty of an under-trail and must be exercised with due care and circumspection. When an accused is not shown to have misused the liberty of bail or attempted to subvert investigations or trial , the Court should not cancel bail on petty or minor reasons. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cancelling the bail of the petitioner was neither warranted nor justified and as such cannot be sustained.
9.
In view of the forgoing reasons, the petition is allowed, impugned order cancelling petitioner’s bail is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to remain on bail as already granted.