AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 276 wordsBakhshish Kaur, J.
Heard.
The prayer for cancellation of bail has been made mainly on the ground that the Court has exercised the discretion arbitrarily. Petitioner is the main accused and being the husband of the deceased was not entitled to concession of bail.
Adverting to the observations made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, para 10 of the order, reads as under :
"If Des Raj had really seen her of should be his daughter on fire on 9.5.1998 then the FIR lodged on 11.5.98 at 11.30 A.M. was primafacie delayed by about two days for which there is at present no explanation. A delayed FIR is often looked at with suspicion. Further the action of the applicant to take Shashi first to Civil Hospital Sangrur at 7.30 P.M. and then on being referred at 8.10 P.M. to the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana at 11.23 P.M. on 9.5.1998 and spending a big amount on her treatment in a bid to save her life is again a plus point for the applicant to be considered for concession of bail"
Apart from the above observation case has to be looked from another angle i.e. whether the petitioner had misused concession of bail granted to him; secondly whether he had interfered or attempted to interfere in the investigation or tampered with the evidence. There is no such material or averment worth name in the petition. It is well settled that bail granted to a person should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered of no longer conducive to a fair trial.
Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.