$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 16.01.2024

Pronounced on: 30.01.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 2564/2021
BABBAN GIRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra
and Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan
Mishra, Advocates
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439(2) read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused
persons namely, respondent no. 2 i.e. Garvesh vide order dated
16.09.2020, respondent no. 3 i.e. Sunil Gupta vide order dated
04.08.2020, respondent no. 4 i.e. Praful Kumar vide order dated
05.10.2020, respondent no. 5 i.e. Abhishek Kumar, respondent no. 6
i.e. Sandeep Kumar Samal, respondent no. 7 i.e. Sunil Gupta vide
orders 14.10.2020, and respondent no. 8 i.e. Dilip Kumar vide order

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53
 dated 29.10.2020, in FIR No. 400/2018, registered at Police Station
Najafgarh, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) on the ground that the accused
persons are threatening and abusing the complainant and her
relatives.
2. The FIR in this case was registered on 07.12.2018, on the
complaint made by the wife of present petitioner, whereby it was
alleged that her three daughters had been kidnapped on 04.12.2018
by the accused persons.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the accused persons are violating the conditions imposed upon
them by the learned Trial Court while granting them regular bail. It is
argued that the petitioner and his family is victim of circumstances
and the crimes committed by the respondents herein, who are
victimizing the petitioner and his daughters. It is stated that on
14.06.2020, the accused persons had attempted to burn the
petitioner’s house by pouring petrol on the main gate. It is also
submitted that another FIR No. 705/2020 was registered on
10.07.2020,on the complaint lodged by petitioner’s wife, on
allegations that her two daughters had gone missing and that there
have been several instances on which the accused persons have
threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is also pointed
out that one more FIR was registered on 05.02.2021 on the complaint
of petitioner’s wife as her minor daughter had gone missing. It is also
argued that present petitioner was falsely implicated in one case
under Sections 323/354/376D/506/34 of IPC, by wife of one of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 2 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53
 accused. It is submitted that the accused persons are misusing the
liberty granted to them by the learned Trial Court and that they are a
threat to the complainant and her family. Therefore, it is prayed that
the bail granted to the accused persons be cancelled.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents submits that the complainant/petitioner has been making
false allegations against the accused persons, solely with the motive
of getting their bails cancelled. It is further stated that since their
release on bail, the accused persons have neither contacted the
complainant nor any of her family members. It is further stated that
the complainant herein had filed an application seeking cancellation
of bail granted to the co-accused persons herein which was dismissed
by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2020 on the ground
that the complaints made by the complainant contained only general
allegations against the accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that
present petition be dismissed.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that
PCR calls made by the complainant had been answered and upon
conducting enquiry, no evidence was found to register a case against
the accused persons. It is stated one FIR has already been registered
on 10.07.2020 qua the alleged incident of 30.06.2020, and one
another FIR was registered on 05.02.2021 when the daughter of
petitioner had gone missing.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 3 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53
 7. The present petition has been filed by the complainant seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons in the year 2020
by the learned Trial Court.
8. Before considering merits of the case, this Court finds it
necessary to look at the law on cancellation of bail. In this regard, a
reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559
wherein in was observed as under:

“…30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that

bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain
his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during
trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was
already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1
SCC 349 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail
which are :-
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of Justice
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in
any manner
(iv) Possibility of accused absconding
(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail
(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the
evidence or threatening witnesses.
31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be
limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances.
This Court certainly has the inherent powers and
discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the
absence of supervening circumstances. Following are
the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be
cancelled:-

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 4 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53
 a) Where the court granting bail takes into account
irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial
nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the
influential position of the accused in comparison to
the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when
there is prima facie misuse of position and power
over the victim.
c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the
accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order
granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the
first place given the very serious nature of the
charges against the accused which disentitles him for
bail and thus cannot be justified.
g) When the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the
given case.
32. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And
Another (2014) 16 SCC 508, the accused was granted bail
by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the
High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined
the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail
and observed as under:-
“…It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail
after it is granted because the accused has
misconducted himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such cancellation have
occurred is in a different compartment altogether than
an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and
perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which
should have been taken into consideration while
dealing with the application for bail and have not
been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior court can set
aside the order of such a grant of bail…”
(Emphasis Supplied)

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ms. X v. State of Telangana

(2018) 16 SCC 511, had also held as under:

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 5 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53
 “ 15. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of
the High Court allowing the application for bail
cannot be faulted. Moreover, no supervening
circumstance has been made out to warrant the
cancellation of the bail. There is no cogent material
to indicate that the accused has been guilty of
conduct which would warrant his being deprived of
his liberty."

10. By way of present petition, the petitioner has not challenged

the legality of the orders granting bail to the accused persons and
merits of the same, rather the same has been filed on the grounds that
the accused persons are misusing the liberty granted to them.
11. This Court has perused the Status Report filed on behalf of the
State. With regard to the PCR calls made by the complainant,it is
mentioned that a PCR was received on 04.06.2020, but the
complainant had not handed over any written complaint. Further, it is
mentioned in the status report that as far as the alleged incident of
14.06.2020 is concerned, the same was enquired into by the police,
however, neither any neighbour had come forward to give any
statement regarding the incident of pouring petrol on the main gate of
the house of the complainant, nor there was any CCTV footage
available, to support the case of the complainant, and even no residue
of petrol was found on the gate. Further, during the investigation in
relation to FIR No. 705/2020, which was registered qua an alleged
incident of 30.06.2020, when the daughters of complainant had been
allegedly chased by some person on bike, the police had obtained the
CDR details and phone locations of present accused persons, and as

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 6 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53
 per records, at the time of incident, the location of the accused
persons were different from the place of alleged incident.
12. The petitioner herein had also been arrested on 20.10.2020, in
one FIR No. 892/2020, registered under Sections 323/354/376D/
506/34 of IPC at Police Station Ranhola, on the basis of complaint
lodged by wife of one of the accused herein. The petitioner was
granted bail by this Court in the said FIR vide order dated
24.08.2021.
13. In the present case, the accused persons were granted bail in
the year 2020 and since then, about four years have passed. It is
settled law that bail once granted, cannot be cancelled in a
mechanical manner, and in absence of any supervening event which
would render it impossible to ensure a fair trial.
14. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to allow the present
petition and cancel the bail granted to the accused persons herein.
15. However, the complainant will be at liberty to approach the
Witness Protection Committee, in case of any threat being extended.
The SHO of concerned Police Station will also ensure that prompt
action is taken, upon receipt of any complaint, if any threat is
extended to the complainant herein, in accordance with law.
16. With the above directions, the application is disposed of.
17. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

JANUARY 30, 2024/ns

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN CRL.M.C. 2564/2021 Page 7 of 7
Signing Date:14.02.2024
19:43:53