Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of XYZ v. State of UP and Anr., that the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled based on the plea that the accused is continuously threatening the applicant/informant after his/her release on bail.

What was the Background of XYZ v. State of UP and Anr. Case?

• Before the Allahabad High Court, the instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite party number 2.
• The applicant is the informant of the case.
• Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has filed the bail cancellation application on the ground that after release on bail, opposite party number 2 is continuously threatening her and in this regard, an application has been moved before the higher authorities on 2^nd September, 2023 and when no action was taken against opposite party number 2 then she had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which is still pending.
• The instant bail cancellation application is devoid of metrics and so it is dismissed by the High court.

What were the Cour’s Observations?

• Justice Sameer Jain observed that the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled on the basis of an application filed claiming that the accused is continuously threatening the applicant/informant after his/her release on bail.
• The Court also held that if based on such an application, bail granted to the accused is cancelled, then it would open a Pandora's box and endless litigation would start between both parties.
• The Court further noted that it is easy to reject a bail application, but it is very difficult to cancel the bail already granted and for cancellation, very cogent and overwhelming reasons must be present.

What is Section 156(3) of CrPC?

About:

• Section 156 of CrPC deals with the police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases. It states that-

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

Case Laws:

• Mohd Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr. (2006), the Supreme Court held that any judicial magistrate might order an investigation under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before taking notice of the offence. If he does, he is not allowed to force the complainant to take an oath because he was unaware of any wrongdoing.
• Ramdev Food Products v. State of Gujarat (2015), SC held that a directive under Section 156(3) of CrPC should only be given following the Magistrate’s application of thought.