ORDER
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 29.8.2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar passed the order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 13.7.1998.
2. The opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint case against her husband (petitioner No. 1) and his elder brother (petitioner No. 2) and after inquiry, cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 406, 498A/34,1.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution as alleged that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1 and their marriage was performed on 21.5.1991. It is alleged that the accused persons started demanding money from the father of the complainant and the father of the complainant also gave a sum of Rs. 15,000/ – for starting the lathe machine business but the petitioner No. 1 did not start the business and invested the money in other matters. The accused persons again started demanding money and also started torturing the complainant and thereafter the complaint case was filed. On receipt of summons, the petitioners appeared in the Court below and filed the bail application but the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of bail as regards to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners moved before the Sessions judge for grant of bail and they have also filed a compromise petition before the Sessions Judge and, thereafter, after hearing the parties the petitioners were granted bail taking into consideration the compromise petition by order dated 13.7.1998. The opposite party filed a petition under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail and after hearing both parties the Sessions Judge cancelled the bail already granted to them by the order impugned.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the opposite party/complainant had also filed one criminal case earlier being PCR 139 of 1997 under Sections 379, 498A/34, I.P.C but the Court below took cognizance for the offence under Section 406, I.P.C, which is still pending and thereafter the instant case has been filed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioners have never misused the privilege of bail, nor there is any allegation of tampering with the evidence or putting any interference in the proceedings of the case and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed error in cancelling the bail already granted to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the complainant had filed a petition for cancellation of bail on grudge, mala fide and only to harass the petitioners. Petitioners have already been granted privilege of bail, though after taking into account the compromise petition but the liberty which has already been provided to the petitioners should not be curtailed on flimsy grounds or mala fide allowed. It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 1-husband is ready to keep the complainant-wife and also maintain her in proper way but the complainant who is obstinate and at the instance of her father is not ready to cooperate with the petitioner No. 1, the husband.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 contended before me that the petitioners were granted bail on the basis of a compromise petition which was filed jointly and there was a condition in the said compromise petition that the petitioner (husband) will reside for a year in the house of the complainant at Deoghar and he will keep and maintain her while living in the house of the father of the complainant, rather the petitioner No. 1 has gone to Kolkata.
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were granted bail by the Sessions judge vide order dated 13.7.1998 and the petition under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. was filed for cancellation of bail on 11.8.1998 just after 28 days of the passing of the bail order, which apparently indicates that the petitioners were not given an opportunity for complying the compromise already held between the parties. Compromise petition was filed jointly which also indicates a joint liability of both parties for complying the same. There is no material to show that the petitioners were found tampering with the evidence or putting any interference in the proceedings of the case, nor there is any evidence coming forward to show that the petitioners are threatening either to the witnesses of the complainant or to the complainant at any point of time after granting bail to them. It is true that at the time of granting bail to the petitioners, the compromise petition filed, by both sides was also taken into account for consideration, but admittedly there is no evidence or allegation that the petitioners are putting any hurdle in the proceedings of the case or tampering with the evidence or threatening any of the witnesses of the complainant under which the bail granted to a person can be cancelled at any moment if such fact is alleged and comes into light.
7. The Apex Court also laid down some guidelines for cancellation of bail as reported in 1992 Cr.L.C. (S.C.) page-3712, i.e. :
(i) The bail can be cancelled where the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity.
(ii) Interference with course of investigation.
(iii) Attempt to tamper with the evidence of witness.
(iv) Threats witness or indulgence in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation.
(v) There is likelihood of his absconding to another country.
(vi) Attempt to make himself scares by underground or becoming unavailable to the Investigating agency.
(vii) Attempts to place himself beyond the reach of sureties, etc.
8. None of the grounds has been alleged as against the petitioners for cancellation of their bail and as such I find that the learned Sessions Judge committed error in cancelling the bail already granted to the petitioners and the order impugned is fit to be quashed.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, I find merit in this application, which is accordingly allowed. The order dated 29.8.2000 is, hereby, quashed.
