Observing that no untoward incident has taken place since the persons accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were released on bail, the Gujarat High Court has refused to entertain an application preferred by the complainant for cancellation of bail.
Bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed,
"Trial is already set on motion and the case has already been fixed on 20.6.2022, and further, there is no untoward incident has taken place after June 2017 nor any case is made out of breach of any of the conditions of grant of bail, hence this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion to cancel the bail which has been granted."
The Respondents are accused for alleged commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 505 and 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and under Section 135 of the G.P. Act.
The Complainant-Applicant belonging to Scheduled Castes community herein was challenging the bail order passed in favour of Respondent parties who belonged to the economically and socially strong Aahir community on the ground that the offences were serious in nature and the bail order was not a speaking order. Further, the accused persons posed a danger to the family of the Complainant.
Per contra, the APP pointed out that the State had not filed any application for cancellation nor from the material, it is emerging that respondents have violated any of the conditions of bail.
The Court noted that the Special Atrocity Judge while passing the order had exercised due discretion and taken into note all the facts of the case. There was clearly no untoward incident which had taken place after June 2017 hence the Court was not inclined to exercise discretion in cancelling bail.
Reliance was placed on Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar where the Supreme Court held that bail can be cancelled where:
(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country,
(vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.
Similarly, in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex Court had opined that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.
Basis these precedents and lack of supervening circumstances to warrant cancellation of bail, the High Court dismissed the complainant's plea under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of CrPC.
Case Title: VIJAYBHAI PUNABHAI CHAVDA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 13 other(s)
Case No.: R/CR.MA/16169/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 166