SATULA DEVI  Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 1 of 10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 85/2021

Date of decision: 22nd January , 202 1
IN THE MATTER OF:
SATULA DEVI ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Ak shay
Dev, Mr. Satwik Misra and
Mr. Rishabh Rana, Advocate

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
with S.I. Gunjan Sinha

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for setting aside
order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Bail Application 1694/ 20 whereby the
Addi tional Session Judge refused to cancel the Bail granted to the
respondent No.2 in FIR No. 279 dated 21.09.2020, registered at Police
Station Crime Branch, New Delhi, under Sections 323, 344, 406, 509, 411,
420 and 34 of IPC read with Section 12 of the Pass port Act.
2. Brief facts leading to this case are as under:
a) The petitioner states that she is the lawfully wedded wife of Dr.
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 2 of 10

Mahendra Prasad, a Member of Parliament. She states that she
has three children. She also states that she herself belong s to an
extre mely rich family and had brought large amounts of gold
which was handed over to Dr. Mahendra Prasad. She states that
she has been given 70% shareholding of the companies run by
Dr. Mahendra Prasad .
b) It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 came
as a tutor of the children of the petitioner and Dr. Mahendra
Prasad and within a short period of time she became a secretary
in one of the companies owned by Dr. Mahendra Prasad and
soon became a part of the family and start ed living with Dr.
Mahendra Prasad . It is stated that the petitioner belonging to the
orthodox family did not question Dr. Mahendra Prasad .
c) It is stated that one of the sons of Dr. Mahendra Prasad passed
away leaving his widow Mrs. Kanchana Rai and two children. It
is alleged that Mrs. Kanchana Rai started residing with the
respondent No.2 and they hatched a conspiracy to take control of
the assets.
d) It is stated that the respondent No.2 and Mrs. Kanchana Rai
illegally transferred huge amounts of money from the accounts of
the petitioner and Dr. Mahendra Prasad . It is further stated that
Mrs. Kanchana Rai was a joint account holder with the petitioner
and she siphoned money from the accounts of the petitioner . It is
alleged that the respondent No.2 and Mrs. Kanchana Rai have
also illegally transferred shares of the petitioner in favour of her
children.
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 3 of 10

e) It is stated that due to the degenerating mental illness respondent
No.2 took complete control of the residence in which the
petitioner and Dr. Mahendra Prasad were residing and s he started
beating and abusing the petitioner.
f) It is alleged that the respondent No.2 has forged the signature of
Dr. Mahendra Prasad and had made forged documents to disown
the son s of Dr. Mahendra Prasad and petitioner.
g) It is also alleged that the respo ndent No.2 has produced an
affidavit before the Rajya Sabha wrongly claiming to be the wife
of Dr. Mahendra Prasad .
h) On a complaint , FIR No. 279 dated 21.09.2020, was registered
against respondent No.2 at Police Station Crime Branch, New
Delhi, under Secti ons 323, 344, 406, 509, 411, 420 and 34 of IPC
read with Section 12 of the Passport Act .
i) A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by Mr. Ranjit Sharma, son of
the petitioner and Dr. Mahendra Prasad in the Delhi High Court
being W.P. (Crl.) 2255/2019 , titled as R.S. v. State and Ors. ,
alleging that Dr. Mahendra Prasad and the petitioner are in illegal
confinement and detention of the respondent No.2 .
j) It is stated that the Division Bench of this court interacted with
Dr. Mahendra Prasad and found that he was not of sound mental
health. After perusing the Status Report filed by the police and
medical reports of Dr. Mahendra Prasad a consensus was reached
whereby the petitioner was permitted to continue to stay at C –
1/21 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
k) At this juncture, it i s pertinent to mention that after investigation
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 4 of 10

in FIR No. 279 dated 21.09.2020, a charge -sheet was filed in the
court of learned CMM on 30.09.2019 , stating that the respondent
No.2 has been charge -sheeted for offences under Section s 323,
344, 406, 509, 41 1, 420 and 34 of IPC read with Section 12 of
the Passport Act .
l) It is stated in the charge -sheet that gold items and diamond
jewellery has been recovered from respondent No.2 but some
more jewellery is yet to be recovered.
3. The respondent No.2 filed an app lication for bail in FIR No. 279.
The Additional Session Judge by an order dated 23.10.2019 granted bail to
the respondent No.2/petitioner therein on the following terms :
i. That the applicant shall continue to participate in the
investigation as and when r equired or so intimated by the IO;
ii. That the applicant shall make no attempt, directly or indirectly, to
contact the complainant, his relatives, friends and witnesses of
the present case;
iii. That she shall furnish her mobile phone number to the
police/IO/S HO which shall be kept operational at all times, so
that the police could contact h er;
iv. That in case she changes his mobile number or residential
address or work place, she shall inform the IO/SHO forthwith.
v. That the applicant/accused shall not leave t he country without the
prior permission of the trial court .

4. An application for cancellation of bail was filed by the petitioner
stating that respondent No.2 is staying with Dr. Mahendra Prasad and is
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 5 of 10

brazenly violating the order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench
of this court in W.P. (Crl.) 2255/2019. It is alleged that the respondent No.2
is not permitting the petitioner to meet Dr. Mahendra Prasad . It is alleged
that in mid October, 2020 the petitioner received information that Dr.
Mahendra P rasad is admitted to Apo llo Hospital and on coming to know the
petitioner rushed to the hospital. On reaching the hospital the respondent
No.2 did not let the petitioner meet Dr. Mahendra Prasad which is in gross
violation of the order dated 22.09.2020 pas sed by this court in W.P. (Crl.)
2255/2019 . It is stated that Dr. Mahendra Prasad is suffering from ‘ fronto
temporal dementia’ which is a very peculiar disease in which a person
suffering from this disease has a very short -term memory and lacks cogent
and intelligent decision making. It is stated that the respondent No.2 is
trying her best to ensure that the petitioner does not meet Dr. Mahendra
Prasad so that he cannot remember the petitioner. It is stated that evidence of
Dr. Mahendra Prasad is very cruci al for this case and the respondent No.2 is
trying her best to prejudice the case filed against her and is violating the
conditions of bail. It is further alleged in the application for cancellation of
bail that substantial amount of gold items and other jewellery are yet to be
recovered from the respondent No.2 for which it is necessary that the
respondent No.2 remains in custody . It is further alleged that the respondent
No.2 is threatening the witnesses by filing false cases against the m which
amounts t o tampering with evidence and therefore the bail granted to the
respondent No.2 must be cancelled.
5. The learned Additional Session Judge by his order dated 17.12.2020
rejected the application for cancellation of bail. A CD containing the
inciden t which happened at the Apol lo Hospital wherein it is alleged that the
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 6 of 10

respondent No.2 has not permitted the petitioner to meet Dr. Mahendra
Prasad was shown . The learned ASJ after viewing the CD held that the
allegations made on the basis of the CD can be decided on ly after evidence
is led and even if the allegations made by the petitioner on the basis of the
CD is accepted as true still it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 had
contacted the petitioner and threatened them to turn hostile and has therefore
viola ted the condition of bail . As regards the allegation that the action of the
respondent No.2 in her not permitting the petitioner to meet her husband
cannot be treated as the violation of the condition granting bail and that it
was open to the petitioner t o take appropriate remedy before this court. The
learned Additional Session Judge held that merely because a few jewellery
items have not been recovered it cannot be said that there is a ground in
itself for cancellation of bail. Learned Additional Session Judge held that
since the charge -sheet has already been filed and the respondent No.2 is an
elderly woma n who is suffering from cancer and has undergone surgery and
that if she is sent to jail she would be vulnerable there and can be infected
with COVID -19. The learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the
application for cancellation of bail.
6. The said order has been challenged in the instant petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
would co ntend that on the day of Karwa chauth the petitioner wanted to
meet her husband and the respondent No.2 ensured that the petitioner does
not meet her husband. He would further state that when her husband was
admitted to Apollo Hospital the respondent No.2 did not permit the
petitioner to meet her husband. He would contend that this conduct is a
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 7 of 10

blatant violation of the directions passed by this court in the judgment dated
22.09.2020 in W.P. (Crl.) 2255/2019 and is also a violation of the condition
granting bail. He would further submit that the respondent is filing false
complaint s against the witnesses in the criminal case and this amount s to
tampering with evidence. He would state that substantial recovery of gold
items is yet to be made and therefore the bail granted to the respondent No.2
must be cancelled. Mr. Singh would further submit s that the allegation for
the offence under Passport Act is that she has got her passport falsely
claiming that she is the wife of Dr. Mahendra Prasad . He states that she has
masqueraded herself as the wife of Dr. Mahendra Prasad and is continuing
to do so . He states that this amounts to perpetrating the offence of which she
has been charged and therefore bail granted to her vide order dated
23.10.2019, should be cancelled.
8. The Supreme Court has time and again held that very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already granted. The broad grounds laid down by
the Supreme Court for cancellation of bail have been stated in Dolat Ram v.
State of Haryana , reported as (1995) 1 SCC , 349, which reads as under :
“4. 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
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 8 of 10

material placed o n 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 re ndered 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, it appears, were lost sight of by the
High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already
granted. ” (emphasis supplied)

9. It is also well settled that cancellation of bail necessarily involves a
review of a decision already made and it should be used very sparingly by a
court of law.
10. The allegation that the respondent No.2 has not permi tted the
petitioner to meet her husband cannot be said to be a violation of the
condition s of order dated 23.10.2019, granting bail to the respondent No.2
herein . This court is not in a position to agree with the submission s of Mr.
Vikas Singh, learned Sen ior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that it is a
violation of the second condition in the order dated 23.10.2019, wherein the
learned Additional Session Judge while granting the bail has directed that
the respondent No.2 shall not make any attempt di rectly or indirectly to
contact the complainant/petitioner herein . If the petitioner feels that the
order dated 22.09.2020 in W.P. (Crl.) 2255/2019 is being violated, the
petitioner has to take appropriate steps in the writ petition .
11. Mr. Vikas Singh has s hown the CD to substantiate his contention that
the respondent No.2 has not permitted the petitioner to meet her husband in
Apollo Hospital which according to him is a violation of the order dated
23.10.2019 granting bail . This court is unable to accept th e contention of
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 9 of 10

Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate. This is not a violation of any of
the condition granting bail . The petitioner has failed to give any instance to
show that the respondent No.2 has contacted the petitioner and has
threatened her which will amount to tampering with evidence in the criminal
case.
12. The allegations that the respondent No.2 has been filing false
complaints against the witnesses in order to pressurise the witnesses which
amounts to tampering with evidence in the criminal c ase also cannot be
accepted for the reason that these are matters to be investigate d by the police
and only during the investigation the correctness of the allegations can be
ascertained and till the investigation is not complete the bail granted to the
respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.10.2019 cannot be cancelled.
13. The allegation that the respondent No.2 is masquerading herself as the
wife of Dr. Mahendra Prasad and therefore this amounts to violation of one
of the conditions of the bail granted also cannot be accepted. The allegation
under Section 12 of the Passport Act is that she has obtained the passport
masquerading herself as wife of Dr. Mahendra Prasad . There is nothing
before this court to show that the respondent No.2 has committed an offence
while masquerading as the wife of Dr. Mahendra Prasad . The allegation that
the respondent No.2 is still claiming herself to be the wife of Dr. Mahendra
Prasad and therefore has violated the condition of the order granting bail
cannot be accepted.
14. The learn ed Additional Session Judge has taken into account all the
factors while dismissing the application for cancellation of bail. It cannot be
said that the said order is perverse warrant ing interference by this court in
exercise of its powers under Section 48 2 of the Cr.P.C. This court is not
2021:DHC:259

CRL.M.C. 85 /2021 Page 10 of 10

inclined to go into excruciating details on facts for substitut ing its own
conclusion to one arrived at by the learned Additional Session Judge while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C which is di rected
against the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Session
Judge.
15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

JANUARY 22 , 2021
rs
2021:DHC:259