Mere Suspicion No Basis To Cancel Bail: HC

 Hyderabad: Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court ruled that assumption and suspicion without any admissible proof cannot form the basis for incarceration by cancelling bail. The judge made the observation while dealing with a criminal petition filed by Dr. Muttavarapu Sirisha, who had lodged a complaint under Sections 302, 307, 498-A, 120-b read with 34 of IPC with regard to attempted arsenic poisoning of her family. Among the accused is the petitioner’s husband. The complainant’s mother was admitted in a hospital in June 2023 and she died in July. Arsenic was found on members of the family, including the petitioner’s father, brother and sister-in-law when their blood was tested. It is the case of the petitioner that accused nos. 3 and 4 tried to inject succinyl choline in the neck of the father of the petitioner unsuccessfully. The sequence of events led to suspicion that all the family members, including the mother, were administered arsenic by mixing it in chilli powder in their house. Bail was granted to some of the accused in September 2023. Senior counsel B. Rachana Reddy appearing for the petitioner sought cancellation of the bail contending that the remains of the deceased after funeral were sent for testing to forensic science laboratory, the results of which are awaited. The only persons who could have mixed arsenic were A1 and A6, who had access to the flat of the complainant’s family. The principal accused in the case is the husband of the petitioner, whose bail was sought to be cancelled. The husband, accused no. 6, contended that once this court had granted bail, except in cases of violation of conditions of bail, this court cannot cancel the bail as it amounted to reviewing its own order. Even on facts, no case is made out against A6. The death occurred on July 5, 2023 and the complaint was filed after one-and-a-half months on August 18 only on account of differences between A1 and his wife. The 2nd respondent/A6 was made a scapegoat and falsely implicated, it was contended. Rejecting the application for cancellation of bail, Justice Surender held the foundation of the complaint was mainly the suspicion of the de facto complainant, and others, that arsenic poison was mixed by A1 and A6, who had access to the flat of the complainant between March 17 and April 4, 2023, when A1 visited India. Except for the said suspicion that A1 with the help of A6 might have mixed arsenic poison in chilli powder, there is no evidence to show that the 2nd respondent had purchased any substance containing arsenic poison. In the absence of any proof that A6 had procured arsenic poison, the suspicion that arsenic poison must have been mixed by A6, who lives in the same apartment, cannot form basis to pass any order, as prayed for by the petitioner/de-facto complainant. The judge accordingly refused to cancel the order enlarging the accused on bail.