Page 1

REPORTABLE               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  585           OF 2014 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 766 OF 2014)

Pooja Bhatia         ....   Appellant (s)

Versus

Vishnu Narain Shivpuri & Anr.      ....  Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2) Leave granted.  

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, 326-B 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 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  

1

Page 2

matrix and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,  

released Respondent No. 1 (herein) on bail.  The said order is under  

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 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:

“It is submitted that the T-shirt in FIR No. 293/13  was  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’.   

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 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  injury to her face.”

     [Emphasis supplied]

6) Apart from the above assertion made by the Superintendent of  

Police, who is a highest police officer of the District, learned  

2

Page 3

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Sate during the course  

of  hearing  has  brought  to  our  notice  the  order  passed  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  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 (5TH), LUCKNOW

CASE NO. 107/2014  UNDER SECTON 110G OF CR.P.C.

P.S. LUCKNOW CITY      STATE VS. VISHNU NARAYAN, SHIVPURAI  

CASE fixed on:  

ORDER UNDER 110/111 OF CRL.P.C.

It was revealed in the report dated 15.02.2014 of In- charge  Inspector/SHO,  City  sent  under  Section  110  of  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  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, Addl. City Magistrate, 5th  

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  

3

Page 4

similar amounts be not taken from him in order to maintain  peace for a year?

Order issued today on 19.02.2014 under my signature  and seal of the Court.

Sd/- illegible Addl. City Magistrate (5th)

Lucknow

Order was read over and explained to the Opp. Party,  which is acknowledged by him.

Sd/- illegible Addl. City Magistrate (5th)

Lucknow

7) Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  

Respondent  No.1-accused  by  taking  us  through  various  proceedings  

including the matrimonial disputes and 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.  

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:-

“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  where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in  similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course  

4

Page 5

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. These grounds are  illustrative  and  not  exhaustive.  It  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  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 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 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, 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 weeks from today.  

5

Page 6

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.  

     …………………………………CJI.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)

................J.  (RANJAN GOGOI)     

NEW DELHI; 10TH MARCH, 2014

6