POOJA BHATIA versus VISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 10-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 661 
POOJA BHATIA 
v. 
VISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2014) 
MARCH 10, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
BAIL: 
A 
B 
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. 
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 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 585 of 2014. 
E 
F 
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'. 
It is the case of the answering respondent that vide B 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.