POOJA BHATIAversusVISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR.

                    [2014] 3 S.C.R. 661


                      POOJA BHATIA                               A
                              v.
            VISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2014)

                      MARCH 10, 2014
                                                                 B
    [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

    BAIL:

     Cancellation of bail -- Held: In the light of the principles c
for cancellation of bail and the assertion made by the
Superintendent of Police in the form of counter affidavit and
follow-up action, inasmuch as throwing acid on the
complainant is a serious one,. though no injury on her but spit
on her t-shirt and it got burnt, and taking note of the conduct 0
of respondent-accused after the impugned order of High
Court, granting him bail, the accused is not entitled to continue
the benefit of bail -- Accordingly, the impugned order of High
Court is set aside and respondent-accused is directed to
surrender.
                                                                 E
    Manjit Prakash and Others vs. Shobha Devi and Another,
                      =
2008 (10) SCR 1141 (2009) 13 sec 785 - relied on.

                      Case Law Reference:
    2008 (10) SCR 1141         relied on            para 9       F

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 585 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2014 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in BA G
No. 5876 of 2013.

    Meenakshi Arora, Vivek K. Tankha, Manish Mohan, Ajay
Singh, Puja Sarkar, Mahima Sareen, Umang Shankar, Prashant
                            661                                  H
    662       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A   Kumar, Awantika Manohar, Sunil Sigh Parihar, Ap & J
    Chambers, Pragati Neekhra, Mukul Singh for the appearing
    parties.

          The following order of the Court was delivered

B                                ORDER

          1. Heard learned counsel for the parties

          2. Leave granted
C         3. Against the grant of bail in favour of the Respondent
    No.1-accused viz. Vishnu Narain Shivpuri. the complainant has
    filed the above appeal.

          4. Respondent No.1 was charged under Sections 342,
o 326-8 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail application
    was filed initially before the Sessions Court After taking note
    of all the materials and the seriousness of the allegations
    levelled against him. the Sessions Court rejected his bail
    application. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the High
E   Court. The High Court by the impugned order after taking note
    of the submissions made by both the sides and considering
    the injury report as well as other factual matrix and without
    expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, released
    Resp9ndent No. 1 (herein) on bail. The said order is under
F   challenge by the complainant in the present appeal.

         5. By order dated 23.01.2014, this Court issued notice to
    respondents. Pursuant to the same, the Respondent No.2-State
    viz. Superintendent of Police, Trans Gomti, Lucknow, filed
    counter affidavit highlighting the cases between the parties and
G   conduct of the Respondent No.1-accused after grant of bail by
    the High Court order dated 16.01.2014. Among the various
    information, the assertion in paras 12 and 14 of the counter
    affidavit of the Superintendent of Police dated 05.02.2014 are
    relevant which read as under:
H
   POOJA BHATIA v. VISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI &                663
                      ANR.
           "It is submitted that the T-shirt in FIR No. 293/13 was A
     sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
     Lucknow. The chemical examination of the t-shirt worn by
     the complainant/petitioner at the time of incident confirms
     the presence of 'Sulphuric Acid'.
                                                                  B
           It is the case of the answering respondent that vide
     report No.11 dated 01.02.2004 P.S. Mahanagar Lucknow
     while patrolling at Papermill Colony it came to the
     knowledge that the Respondent No.1, a resident of
     Papermill Colony, Nishatganj, after being enlarged on bail
     was found telling people in the locality that he went to jail C
     for throwing Sulphuric Acid on his wife namely Pooja
     Bhatia i.e. the petitioner herein and whenever he will again
     get a chance. will do the same to his wife in order to
     damage/cause injurv to her face."
                                                                   D
                                            [Emphasis supplied]
       6. Apart from the above assertion made by the
  Superintendent of Police, who is a highest police officer of the
  District, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- E
  Sate during the course of hearing has brought to our notice the
. order pass-ed by the Additional City Magistrate (5th), Lucknow
  in Case No. 107/2014 under Section 110G of Cr.P.C. which
  shows that pursuant to the action of the Respondent No.1 as
  revealed in report dated 15.02.2014, the above proceedings
  were initiated and the following information in the said F
  proceeding dated 19.02.2014 which are relevant for the
  purpose of disposal of this appeal reads as under:

           IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CITY
           MAGISTRATE (STH), LUCKNOW                              G

                     CASE NO. 107/2014
              UNDER SECTON 110G OF CR.P.C.
                     P.S. LUCKNOW CITY
           STATE VS. VISHNU NARAYAN, SHIVPURAI
                                                                  H
    664      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 3 S.C.R.

A                              CASE fixed on:
                ORDER UNDER 110/111 OF CRL.P.C.

                 It was revealed in the report dated 15.02.2014 of In-
          charge lnspector/SHO, City sent under Section 110 of
B         Crl.P.C. which was received with the approval of C.O., City,
          that Vishnu Narayan Shivpuri S/o. Late Pratap Narayan
          Shivpuri, P.S. City Lucknow is a cunning criminal.
          Common public is quite perturbed and terrorized by his
          criminal acts. Every day he used to intimidate the common
c         public, because of which witnesses avoids to depose
          against him. On the above basis, request was made to
          restrain him on heavy security and bail bond.

                Therefore, I S.K. Mishra, Addi. City Magistrate, 5th
D         Lucknow feeling satisfied by above report of In-charge,
          Lucknow P.S., do hereby direct that he shall appear in my
          Court on the prescribed date and cite that why should
          personal bail bond of Rs.25,000/- and two securities of
          similar amounts be not taken from him in order to maintain
          peace for a year?
E
                Order issued today on 19.02.2014 under my
          signature and seal of the Court.
                                                       Sd/- illegible
F                                         Addi. City Magistrate (5th)
                                                            Lucknow
                Order was read over and explained to the Opp.
          Party, which is acknowledged by him.
G                                                      Sd/- illegible
                                          Addi. City Magistrate (5th)
                                                            Lucknow
      7. Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing on
H behalf of Respondent No.1-accused by taking us through
   POOJA BHATIA v. VISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI &                   665
                      ANR.
various proceedings including the matrimonial disputes and A
assertions in the form of counter affidavit before this Court
submitted that there is no valid ground for cancellation of bail .
at this juncture.

     8. We have considered all the details.                           B
    9. It is useful to refer the principles laid down by this Court
and the circumstances when bail granted can be cancelled
which was highlighted in Manjit Prakash and Others vs.
Shobha Devi and Another, (2009) 13 SCC 785 which reads
as under:-                                                            C

     "As stated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4
     SCC 481 the grounds for cancellation under Sections
     437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under
     Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled         D
     where (1) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in
     similar criminal activity, (i1) 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)          E
     there is likelihood of his fleeing to ap9ther country, (v1)
     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. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It       F
     must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on
     one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order
     because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and
     hence it must not be lightly resorted to.'

     8. It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail       G
     has been granted either tries to interfere with the course
     of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses
     or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities
     which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail
     granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one        H
    666        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A          footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because
           it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not
           to be lightly resorted to."
        10. In the light of the above principles and the assertion
8 made by the Superintendent of Police in the form of counter
  affidavit and follow-up action which we have been noted above,
  we are of the view that inasmuch as throwing acid on the
  complainant is a serious one though no injury on her, but spit
  on her T-shirt and it got burnt and taking note of his conduct
  after the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.01.2014,
C we are satisfied that the accused is not entitled to continue the
  benefit of bail. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High
  Court dated 16.01.2014 is set aside and the Respondent No.1-
  accused is directed to surrender within a period of two weE;lks
  from today.
D
         11. Learned Trial Judge is directed to take all endeavour
    for early completion of the trial preferably within a period of six
    months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
           12. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
E
    R.P.                                              Appeal allowed.