Criminal Misc. No. M-20435 of 2009 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-20435 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.10.2009
Atar Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for cancellation of regular bail
granted to Babu Ram son of Shoba Ram and Katara son of Inder Singh
(respondents No. 2 and 3) by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 6.5.2009.
Both are accused in FIR No. 87 dated 20.11.2008, registered under Sections 302,
323, 324, 148, 149, 427 IPC, Police Station, Bapoli, District Panipat.
Both the aforesaid accused were granted bail by the learned court
below considering the fact that they were 63 and 64 years old, respectively. They
had not been attributed any injury to the deceased. Rather, the only injuries
attributed to them were to the other injured persons, namely, Ramesh and Attar
Singh, which were found to be simple in nature.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid two
accused, the cancellation of bail granted to whom is prayed for in the present
petition, were part of unlawful assembly in which all the accused with common
intention had killed Sunder Pal and caused injuries to three other persons. The
complainant party had the right to take possession of the property considering the
fact that they had purchased the same from its real owner. The accused party were
in illegal possession thereof. After the grant of bail, the parties had been indulging
in the fights again and the witnesses were being threatened, which makes out a
case for cancellation of bail.
Criminal Misc. No. M-20435 of 2009 [ 2]
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3
submitted that the only allegation in the petition seeking cancellation of bail is that
in case the same is not cancelled, there is likelihood of acquittal of respondents
No. 2 and 3, as the police was siding with them. The submission is that this cannot
be said to be a valid ground seeking cancellation of bail, as rejection of bail stands
on one footing, as compared to cancellation of bail which is quite harsh. It is not
the case of the petitioner that there was mis-statement of facts before the court
below at the time of consideration of their bail application. The complaint to the
police, on the basis of which calendra was presented under Section 107/151
Cr.P.C. is nothing else but creation of evidence, as in fact at one instance, even on
the application of respondents No. 2 and 3 also, calendra under Section 107/151
Cr.P.C. was presented. In the present case, the complainant party was the
aggressor, who had attacked respondents No. 2 and 3 and other persons who have
been arrayed as accused in the FIR. Relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in Manjit Prakash and others v. Shobha Devi and another, 2008(3)
RCR (Criminal) 768, it was concluded that no case at all for cancellation of bail is
made out and the petition deserves dismissal.
Learned counsel for the State also supported the version of the
private respondents.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit
in the present petition. A perusal of the order passed by the learned court below
shows that the claim made by the parties was considered threadbare. Respondents
No. 2 and 3 were granted bail considering their age and also that the injuries
attributed to them were not to the deceased and were found to be simple in nature.
In the petition, the only apprehension was that as the police was siding with the
accused, they may be acquitted ultimately. It is only subsequently that in the
affidavit the petitioner stated that the accused had threatened the complainant
party. Presentation of calendra on the complaint of both the parties cannot be said
to be such an incident which could lead to the cancellation of regular bail granted
to the private respondents, as the same may be an over-act on the part of either of
the parties.
It has been consistently opined by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that
rejection of bail stands on a different footing, as compared to cancellation which is
quite harsh, as it takes away the liberty granted to an individual. It is not a case
where the private respondents have been granted concession of regular bail on
mis-statement of any fact.
Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find that a case for
Criminal Misc. No. M-20435 of 2009 [ 3]
cancellation of bail has been made out. Accordingly, the present petition is
dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
20.10.2009
mk