Hira Lal vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

On October 8, 1998, Ram Piari, respondent No. 2 was allowed bail by Sessions Judge, Sonepat as per order Annexure P4. An application for cancellation of bail was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.3.1999, Annexure P5, in a case under Sections 498A/302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has, therefore, again applied for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

The main contention put forth by the learned counsel is that the regular bail application moved by respondent No. 2 was dismissed on merits on July 14, 1998 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat as per Annexure P2. She again filed the regular bail application on similar facts and bail was granted by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated October 8, 1998 and at that time she did not disclose the true facts that her previous bail application was dismissed on merits and procured the order by misrepresenting and misstating the facts. It was, however, mentioned that the earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.9.1998 whereas the main petition was already dismissed on merits on 14.7.1998, Annexure P2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13.3.1999 Annexure P3 vide which his application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed simply on the ground that the previous application was considered and rejected and the second application was filed without any fresh ground and without disclosing the true facts.

Before taking up the matter for the purpose of making out a case for cancellation of bail, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of th order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, vide which respondent No. 2 was allowed bail, which reads as under :

"Keeping in view age of petitioner, separate abode, note in the M.L.R. of accidental injuries, no injury seen on the person of petitioner and the compelling circumstances of bringing up of four children of deceased, it is ordered that petitioner Ram Piari be enlarged on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of this Court."

The circumstances under which the aforesaid order was passed by the Court would show that certain facts were taken into consideration before passing the order for releasing respondent No. 2 on bail, rather I would go a step further by saying that interest of the four minor children of the deceased was also kept in view by the Court.

Adverting to the legal point in the application in hand, it is nowhere pleaded or asserted that Ram Piari has in any way misused the liberty by indulging in similar activities or she had attempted to tamper with the evidence of the witnesses or threatened the witnesses. Ram Piari who happens to be motherinlaw of the deceased is not to be denied the concession of bail already granted to her simply on the basis of her relationship. In fact there must be some convicting material on the record for withdrawing the concession already given to her as 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 it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial as has been laid by their Lordships in Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 237.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the principle laid down by their Lordship in Dolat Ram and others (supra) no case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.