PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) The complainant-petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 (2) with a prayer to cancel and set aside the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar (Headquarter Shrimadhopur) in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 137/2012 whereby learned Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent-accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted him benefit of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 192/2011 registered at Police Station Thoi (District Sikar) for offences under sections 498A, 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The main ground on which the present application has been filed is that after getting benefit of anticipatory bail accused-respondent threatened prosecution witness Shri Narendra Khairwa for which FIR No. 179/2012 came to be registered against the respondent on 6.7.2012 for offence under Section 195A I.P.C. at Police Station Ajitgarh (District Sikar) and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offence in the Court concerned.
(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that FIR No. 192/2011 came to be registered against accused Shri Mahendra Singh, who is husband of complainant Smt. Mankaur Singh and one Smt. Anita Singh alias Sushila at Police Station Thoi (District Sikar), who apprehending their arrest jointly filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar (Headquarter Shrimadhopur) which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 137/2012 and the same was allowed by the aforesaid Court vide impugned order dated 30.6.2012 after imposing certain conditions upon them. One of the conditions was that the respondent would not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. Shri Narendra Khairwa, who is real brother of respondent, claiming that he is also one of the material witness in FIR No. 192/2011, lodged FIR No. 179/2012 against respondent at Police Station Ajitgarh (District Sikar) on 6.7.2012 for offence under Section 195A I.P.C. with the allegation that respondent threatened him with dire consequences if he does not make statement in his favour in FIR No. 192/2011. After registration of FIR No. 179/2012, petitioner filed an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. against respondent with a prayer to cancel the order dated 30.6.2012 whereby benefit of anticipatory bail was granted to him in respect of FIR No. 192/2011 but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar (Headquarter Shrimadhopur) vide order dated 17/7/2012 on the ground that investigation in respect of FIR No. 179/2012 is pending and at this stage it cannot certainly be said that respondent has misused his liberty of anticipatory bail. Thereafter, investigation in respect of FIR No. 179/2012 was completed and charge-sheet for offence under Section 195A I.P.C. was filed against the respondent in the Court concerned. After filing of the charge-sheet, petitioner-complainant filed fresh application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel and set aside the order dated 30.6.2012 whereby benefit of anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrimadhopur (District Sikar) vide order dated 4.9.2015 mainly on the ground that petitioner is not entitled to file application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. and the same has not been filed by the State of Rajasthan or SHO or I.O. Of the case. It is in these circumstances present application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner in this Court. It is to be noted that investigation in respect of FIR No. 192/2011 lodged by the petitioner is still pending even after lapse of five years. It is also to be noted that respondent is a practicing lawyer at Shrimadhopur having standing of about thirty years.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has wrongly been held by the Court below that complainant-petitioner upon whose instance FIR No. 192/2011 came to be registered against respondent is not entitled to seek cancellation of order dated 30.6.2012 whereby benefit of anticipatory bail was granted to respondent. It was submitted that in a police case also, not only the State through Public Prosecutor but also the complainant/victim or any other aggrieved person has a right to seek cancellation of bail granted to accused if he satisfies the Court that it is a fit case in which discretion conferred upon the Court under Section 439 (2) is to be exercised. It was further submitted that it is well settled legal position that bail including anticipatory bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if it is prima facie found by the Court that he has misused the liberty of bail by interfering or attempting to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or by evading or attempting to evade the due course of justice or by intimidating prosecution witnesses or tampering the prosecution evidence in any manner. It was submitted that taking undue advantage of being a practicing lawyer at Shrimadhopur respondent not only interfered in the investigation in a case in which FIR was lodged in the year 2011 and as a result thereof investigation could not be concluded even after lapse of more than five years but also he threatened one of the prosecution witnesses-Shri Narendra Kharwa with dire consequences for which FIR No. 179/2012 was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet for offence under Section 195A I.P.C. has already been filed against him. It was submitted that filing of charge-sheet for offence under Section 195A I.P.C. is sufficient to show that Shri Narendra Singh was threatened by respondent to give false evidence in his favour. It was also submitted that respondent has been convicted for offences under Sections 341 and 323/34 IPC by Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana (District Sikar) vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 42/2000 although benefit of probation was given to him. It was submitted that a false plea has been taken by the respondent in the reply that as many as 18 cases have been lodged against him by petitioner and other family members to grab his property. No material has been produced in support of the plea so taken.;