Delhi District Court
Baby Vaani Chatterjee Through Her ... vs State And Ors on 24 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ALOK SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR NO. DLET01-013848-2023
Criminal Revision No. 338/2023
In the matter of:-
Baby Vaani Chatterjee
Through her mother,
Ms. Reetu Chatterjee,
R/o. M-250, Jal Vayu vihar,
Noida Sector 25,
Uttar Pradesh 201301 ......Revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State
Through it's Chief Secretary
2. Mr. Deepak Bhattacharya
S/o. Late Bimal Bhattacharya,
R/o. H. No. 40A, Sai Kutir,
New Ashok Nagar, East, Delhi
3. Ms. Sabita Dutta,
w/o. Late Tapas Dutta,
Both also residing illegally at:
A-2153, 1st First Floor, Green Field-
Colony, Faridabad, Haryana 121003 ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 21.12.2023
Date of reserve for Judgment : 27.09.2024
Date of decision : 24.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 399 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Page no. 1 revision of the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by Ld. ACMM in case FIR no. 709/2021 PS Mayur Vihar titled State Vs. Deepak Bhattacharya, whereby the application for cancellation of bail of Respondent No.2 & 3 filed by the Revisionist was dismissed.
2. Brief fact of the case are that on the complaint of Ms. Reenu, mother of Revisionist, FIR was registered against the Respondent no.2 & 3 under section 379 IPC. Ms. Reetu is the ex- wife of Late Barun Bhattacharya who died on 27/04/2021 because of COVID-19 in Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, Delhi and Baby Ms. Vaani Chatterjee is the minor daughter of Late Barun Bhattacharya on whose behalf the present revision petition has been preferred. The allegations as per the complaint are that Respondent no.2 & 3 had withdrawn all the money from the bank account no. 195201000001022 in Indian Overseas Bank of Late Mr. Barun Bhattacharya. After investigation chargesheet was filed against the Respondent no.2 & 3 under section 420, 404, 379, 406, 120B IPC. Respondent no.2 & 3 were granted ball by the Court of Ld. MM (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 17.07.2023. An application for cancellation of bail was filed by the complainant under section 437(5) Cr.PC, which was dismissed by the Ld. ACMM vide order dated 20.11.2023.
3. It is argued on behalf of the Revisionist that the Ld. MM granted bail to the Respondent no.2 & 3 without deciding the protest petition. It is further submitted that the Respondent no.2 & 3, who are distant relatives of Late Barun Bhattacharya has forged and fabricated his will and their custodial interrogation is required to unearth the entire conspiracy. It is further submitted that the accused persons have admitted that they had withdrawn more Page no. 2 than Rs. 16 Lakhs from the account of the deceased Lt. Barun Bhattacharya after his death using his debit card without obtaining succession certificate from competent court and complying with other legal formalities.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed in Para 7 of the impugned Order dated 20.11.2023 that 'Prima Facie, there seems to be no specific allegations in the FIR or in the complaint made to SHO regarding forgery of the alleged Will dated 17/11/2020.Therefore the very basis on which the present application for cancellation of bail has been filed is without merit.' It is further submitted that the Complainant made a complaint dated 03/09/2021 to SHO, Police Station, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091 with proper receiving of the same date and with CCTNS Complaint no.81680262100999, however the same has not been filed by the IO due to malafide intention. It has been argued that the custodial interrogation of Respondent no.1 & 2/accused Sabita Dutta and Deepak Bhattacharya is necessary to investigate the commission and omission of acts in conspiracy with other co-accused persons namely Gautam Bhattacharya and Jay Dutta, who are witnesses to the forged Will and Notary Sh. M.L. Gupta, who notarized the forged Will. It is further argued that Sh. Pramod Bhaskar, Bank Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Mayur Vihar, Phase-l, Delhi should also be made one of the accused as he wrote letter dated 28/10/2021 to IO PS, Mayur Vihar stating that there is no locker in the name of Barun Bhattacharya although he submitted the death certificate of his mother and father clarifying that he is the only Page no. 3 legal heir and entitled to inherit the locker in the name of his mother Late Sandhya Bhattacharjee. It is further submitted that the court did not take the reply to the ball application filed by the Complainant on record although there were directions for same vide order dated 12.07.2023.
5. It is further submitted that the accused persons made a false, forged and fabricated will after the death of Late Barun Bhattacharya benefitting only Ms. Sabita Dutta and have illegally withdrawn more than Rs.16 lakhs from the bank account of the deceased Late Barun Bhattacharjee without obtaining succession certificate and other legal formalities on the basis of false, fake, forged and fabricated Will dated 17.11.2020. It is argued that Section 467 and 471 IPC which provides Imprisonment of Life was deliberately not included in the FIR by Police Authorities for reasons best known to them.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has also filed detailed written submission reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition. It is further averred in the written submissions that the Respondent no.2 Sabita Dutta has made different claims regarding her relationship with the deceased Barun Bhattacharya. It is submitted that the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by Ld. ACJ (South-East), Saket, she claimed to be wife of Late Barun Bhattacharya while in other proceedings she claimed to be cousin of Late Barun Bhattacharya. Reliance is also placed upon judgments Ajwar Vs. Waseem, Murthy & Ors. Vs. C. Saradambal & Ors., Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.
Page no. 4
7. Ld. Advocate for Respondent no.2 & 3 has argued that the accused persons have participated and co-operated in the investigation and were not arrested keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in , Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. It is further submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the complainant are matter of trial and the question of whether Section 467/471 of IPC is made out may be raised at the stage of charge. Ld. Advocate for accused persons also submitted that the allegations of forgery of Will are mere speculations.
8. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Revisionists vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023. Ld. Trial Court observed that the charge-sheet in the present case was filed on 14.02.2023 and after taking cognizance, the accused persons had been summoned. Both the accused persons had not been arrested during the investigation and when they appeared before the Court on 12.07.2023, they both filed the applications for regular bail u/s 437 of Cr.PC. The bail applications of both the accused persons was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2023 subject to the conditions stated therein. Ld. Trial Court further observed that application u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant with respect to the alleged Will, cannot be reason for cancellation of the bail application of the accused persons. It further observed that there are no sufficient grounds at this stage for cancellation of bail already granted to the accused persons. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.
9. It is well established proposition of law that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. In Page no. 5 Ajwar vs. Waseem & Anr. [2024] 5 S.C.R. 575, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (supra) decided by a three judges bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words:
"24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court."
10. In Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1137, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
Page no. 6
9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well-
settled legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that 'cogent and overwhelming reasons' are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non- conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana1 observed that:
"Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, 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 the trial."
These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a 3-judge Bench of this Court in X vs. State of Telegana and Another.2
10. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, Page no. 7 conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked.
11. Thus, it is no more res integra that generally, bail may be cancelled due to supervening circumstances or if pertinent facts were hidden during the bail application. Also, if subsequently, the accused's involvement in other criminal activities becomes evident, reconsidering bail, including its cancellation, is possible. In the present case, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons for the offences under sections section 420, 404, 379, 406, 120B IPC. I do not find any supervening circumstance or concealment of fact in the bail plea of the respondent no.2 & 3. In so far as the contention of the Revisionist that accused persons forged and fabricated a will of his late father and the same has been left out of investigation, the same is subject matter of consideration before the Ld. Trial Court in the application filed on behalf of the complainant under section 173(8) Cr.PC. It is also settled proposition of law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment regardless of the nature of crime. No cogent or overwhelming circumstances are found to exist in the present case, which warrants cancellation of bail. Further it is not the case of the Revisionist that the accused persons/respondent no.2 & 3 Page no. 8 have violated any of the condition of grant of bail or interfered or attempted to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evaded or attempted to evade the due course of justice or have abused of the concession granted to them in any manner. Merely because an allegation regarding forgery of will has been made in the application filed by the complainant under section 173(8) Cr.PC or in the reply to the bail application cannot be deemed as a circumstance to cancel the bail granted to the accused persons. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by Ld. ACMM. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
12. It is made clear that nothing stated in the order shall tantamount to expression of final opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the complainant in the application under section 173(8) Cr.PC, which is pending consideration before the Ld. Trial Court. Further the dismissal of the present Revision petition shall not preclude the Ld. Trial Court to pass appropriate orders in case any supervening circumstance is found to exist in future.
13. Copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court forthwith.
14. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 24th Day of October, 2024.
ALOK Digitally signed by
ALOK SHUKLA
(Alok Shukla) SHUKLA
Date: 2024.10.24
19:13:14 +0530
Additional Session Judge-2/
Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances) East/Karkardooma/Delhi/24.10.2024 Page no. 9