Harjit Singh vs Jagdish Singh

H.S. Brar, J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of bail in case FIR No. 109 dated November 1, 1987 under Sections 302/34/201/217/218, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mohali, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Ropar, granted to respondent Jagdish Singh on July 5, 1991 by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Ropar.

The petitioner who is a brother of the deceased Gurdeep Singh has mentioned in the petition that a case was registered against three Police Officials, namely, Madan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector, Baldev Singh Constable and Jagdish Singh Inspector. Madan Lal Assistant SubInspector and Baldev Singh Constable were granted bail on September 26, 1989 and October 21, 1989 respectively. Jagdish Singh Inspector was not challaned, as he was shown in Column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, later on a complaint Jagdish Singh Inspector was also summoned by the Court who appeared in court and moved an application for grant of bail. The Incharge Sessions Judge, vide his order, dated July 5, 1991 allowed him the bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to cancel the bail already granted to respondent Jagdish Singh Inspector, on the following grounds :

(i) that when respondent Jagdish Singh was initially summoned by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, he did not appear before the court for a long time despite the fact that nonbailable warrants were issued against him;

(ii) that respondent Jagdish Singh has threatened the prosecution witnesses and is trying to win over them; and

(iii) that respondent Jagdish Singh is a Police Inspector and he will wield his influence over the Police Officials if he remains on bail.

Reply by way of affidavit has been filed by respondent Jagdish Singh, controverting the allegations made in petition. He has categorically stated in reply to para 3 thereof that he was never served with any summons or nonbailable warrants and the moment it came to his notice, he appeared before the Court on July 5, 1991 and moved an application for bail. The learned Sessions Judge, according to him, was pleased to grant regular bail to him after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The allegation regarding the threat to the petitioner and his witnesses has also been denied in this affidavit by Jagdish Singh Inspectorrespondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate his case for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, relies on the observations in Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 Crl. LJ 129; Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, 1980 Col. LJ 426 (Supreme Court) and Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and others, 1988(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 44 : 1989(1) Recent CR 157.

While arguing that there was no ground for cancellation of bail already granted to respondent Jagdish Singh Inspector, the learned counsel for the respondent cited the following authorities :

(a) Bhagirath and others v. Gobind, 1976 CLR (H.P.) 77.

(b) Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179.

(c) Ashok Kumar v. Dev Raj alias Deva and others, 1983(1) CLR 345; and

(d) Bhagirath Singh v. The State of Gujarat, 1983(2) CLR 181.

After heading the learned counsel for the parties, going through the material placed on the record and giving my considerable thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting bail to respondent Jadish Singh Inspector. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance with the point in issue and are distinguishable. Not only that counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any evidence on the record which could show that the prosecution witnesses were at all threatened by respondent Jagdish Singh Inspector, though an allegation to that effect has been made in the petition. No affidavit of any of the prosecution witnesses alleging that they were threatened by the respondent not to appear and depose against him, is available on the record.

It is not out of place to mention here that the State did not deem it proper to file an application for cancellation of bail already granted to Jagdish Singh Inspector.

A perusal of the record does not show that the respondent ever jumped bail after he was granted that concession by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also not on the record that the respondent was ever served by any process of the court or that he did not appear in response to the issuance of the summons of the Court. The learned counsel also could not point out any evidence which could show that respondent Jagdish Singh Inspector tampered with the prosecution evidence or even tried to threaten witnesses or is in any other manner doing an act which could persuade this Court to cancel his bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not been shown that respondent Jagish Singh Inspector would not be readily available or he is likely to misuse the concession of bail in any other manner. Bail is a privilege and can be cancelled if there is a preponderance of probabilities that the person who is on bail has attempted to tamper with the evidence or threatened the witnesses in such a manner that it would prejudice the trial of the case. In the absence of all this material this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition deserves dismissal and I order accordingly.