JUDGMENT
Fakhruddin, J.
1. This revision-petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant/ applicant, against the order dated 10.10.1994 passed by Mr. R.B. Dixit, Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in Bail Application No. 2116/94 for cancellation of bail, granted to respondent No. 1 Ahad Beg, for an offence under Section 304B, IPC, registered at Crime No. 502/94 by P.S. Shivpuri.
2. The revision is filed mainly on the ground that the first bail application of respondent No. 1 Ahad Beg was decided by III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, thereafter he filed second bail application, which was heard and decided by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.
3. Initially, application No. 2079/94, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.l for grant of bail before Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. On 24.9.1994, the same was transferred to III A.S.J., Shivpuri. The complainant-party had filed an objection. During the pendency of the application, the accused was arrested and an application earlier filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was thus sought to be converted into under Section 439, Cr.P.C. but prayer was rejected by the Third Additional Sessions Judge and the application was dismissed on 29.9.1994.
4. The grievance raised is that thereafter respondent No.l filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which was registered as Cr. Misc. C No. 2116/94. The learned Sessions Judge heard the matter and granted bail on 10.10.1994 to respondent No.l Ahad Beg.
5. Since the impugned order granting bail dated 10.10.1994 was conspicuously silent and did not indicate that earlier bail application under Section 438 was filed and the same was then sought to be converted into under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the prayer was rejected by the Third Additional Sessions Judge and also that this was the second bail application of respondent No. 1 this Court after hearing Counsel for the parties and relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1613, Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, especially para 5 as well as the decision of our High Court reported in 1989 JLJ 35, Munna Singh v. State of M.P, (sic) detailed order on 11.8.1995. As per order dated 1.1.8.1995, the comments of the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri were called for and the records of two bail applications, i.e., Cr. Misc. C. Nos. 2079/94 & 2116/94 were requisitioned. Copy of the revision-petition alongwith copy of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in bail application No. 2116/94 was forwarded for his comments and the Sessions Judge was also directed to submit his comments within a period of fifteen days to this Court.
6. The office-note dated 16.8.1995 shows that the copy of the order passed by this Court on 11.8.1995 alongwith copy of the revision-petition and the copy of the order of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri dated 10.10.94 was forwarded to Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The memo itself was forwarded on 17.8.1995. A reminder was also seen to Sessions judge, Shivpuri on 12.9.1995. Inspite of the reminder being sent, the comments of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri have not been received as yet. The office of the District Judge has marely forwarded two bundles, which are of the Bail Applications Nos. 2079/94 and 2116/94, decided in the month of September & October, 1995 respectively, in pursuant to the requisition sent by the Registry of this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the complainant/applicant raised an objection that long time has elapsed and the Sessions Judge has not complied with the order of this Court. The revision cannot be allowed to remain pending, which is against the order granting bail. It was stated at the bar that order dated 10.10.94 was passed by the then Sessions Judge Mr. R.B. Dixit and in his place Mr. P.B. Kerahalker has been posted as Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.
8. In the opinion of this Court, where the comments are called for by the High Court from the Subordinate Court, it is the bounden duty of the Subordinate Court to forward the comments. In suitable cases, a request can be made for extension of time for explaining the reasons as to why the comments cannot be offered. The Sessions Judge, Shivpuri ought to have forwarded his comments or he could have informed that he was not in a position to offer any comments.
9. Regarding the merit of the case, on the basis of the records of two Bail Applications Nos. 2079/94 & 2116/94, decided on 29.9.94 and 10.10.94, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that a perusal of the order-sheet dated 3.10.94 of Cr. Misc. C.No. 2116/94, shows that the second application was treated by the Court as first bail application, though application, itself, indicated that earlier the applicant had made an Application No. 2079/94, Para 4 of the application mentions in detail about earlier order and the application, yet Sessions Judge treated it as first application. The order-sheet dated 3.10.1994 recorded by the Sessions Judge is a cyclostyled order-sheet. A perusal of it shows that blanks have been filled up. While filling up the blanks it has been mentioned that applicant has informed that it is his first application. This order-sheet does not reflect the correct position. It is the duty of the Court to minutely peruse the application and record order-sheet accordingly. The Sessions Judge on 5th October, 1994 adjourned the case to 6.10.94 as the medical report and case-diary were not produced. On 6.10.94, the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri transferred the case to the Third Addl. Sessions Judge for consideration. On 7.10.1994, the Third Addl. Sessions Judge showed his inability to hear the matter due to some personal reasons and this was informed in writing to the Sessions Judge, as such, the matter was heard by the learned Sessions Judge on 10.10.94 in view of the circumstances.
10. Since the Third Addl. Sessions Judge had shown his inability to hear the matter due to personal reasons, the bail application was heard and decided by the Sessions Judge, therefore, no grievance on that point can be made.
11. Mr. Lahoti, learned Counsel for the applicant/complainant then contended that the matter is serious one as the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly enlarged the respondent No. 1 on bail.
12. The power to cancel bail is to be exercised with great care and circumspection. If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, who was granted bail, has misused it by interfering with the course of justice and fair trial and has made efforts to tamper with the prosecution witnesses, then this would be a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail, or there have to be circumstances such as likelihood of the accused to abscond or that he would abuse his freedom by tampering with evidence.
13. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail after consideration of the material on record. No material has been placed before this Court that the accused has misused the liberty or tampered with the prosecution witnesses and interferred with course of justice.
14. Learned Counsel for the applicant/complainant then contended that there is no speedy trial. But in the opinion of this Court this cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail. There is absolutely no material on record that the accused has misused the bail granted to him or made efforts to tamper with the witnesses.
15. In view of all what has been stated above, this revision has no force and is dismissed. However, it is directed that the learned Court-below shall expedite the trial and decide the matter accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to Sessions Judge, Shivpuri alongwith the records.