Jagjit Singh vs Parduman Singh @ Daman Singh and anr.

S. K. Jain, J. (Oral)

In case FIR No. 228, dated April 24, 1991, under section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Tohana, Ranjit Singh, his brother Harjeet Singh his father Parduman Singh, big mother Gurdeep Kaur and his sister Miss Rani were arrested on 25th April, 1991. Bail application No. 482 of 1991 was instituted on their behalf of 4th September, 1991. It was heard by Shri N.K. lain, Sessions Judge, Hissar and he granted bail to Harjeet Singh and declined to all others vide order dated 7th September, 1991. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below :

"In the peculiar circumstances without expressing myself on merits, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for allowing bail to Harjeet Singh applicant No. 3, as against the applicant Nos. 4 and 5 be fresh grounds have been made out. Ranjeet and Daman Singh being directly involved as husband and fatherinlaw of the deceased are not entitled to the concession of bail. I, therefore, direct that Harjeet Singh applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. It is, however, made clear that in the event the report is not received till the next date the other applicants may move the Court afresh for reconsideration of their bail matter."

Thereafter, the remaining four accused again moved bail application No. 528 of 1991 dated October 11, 1991, whereupon the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar granted bail to three of them, namely, Parduman Singh Gurdeep Kaur and Miss Rani vide his order of November 6, 1991. Short order is as under :

"Heard. The allegations are that the accused husband Ranjit had pressed the throat of the deceased Lakhwinder Kaur, whereas other three had given a lalkara to kill her because she had not brought scooter and fridge. The progress in the case is not possible cause case of death is yet to be ascertained and it (sic) also in the case. In view of these circumstances, the three applicants are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Hissar. The learned counsel does not press for the bail of Ranjit Singh. The bail application of Ranjit Singh is, therefore, rejected."

Through this petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant has sought the cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar to Parduman Singh, Gurdeep Kaur and Miss Rani.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accusedrespondents had suppressed the fact before the learned Sessions Judge that the bail application was moved by them before this Court which was rejected on 7th of August, 1991 that Learned Sessions Judge after having dismissed the bail application of these respondents vide his order of September 7, 1991 has exercised judicial discretion wrongly in granting them bail vide his order of November 6, 1991. The medical pinion about the cause of death was already on the file when the impugned order was passed and that the charge had been framed on the material which was already on the file on 23rd of November, 1991.

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has urged controverting the above said argument.

It is not disputed that right from 25th April, 1991 till they were released on bail on November 6, 1991, Parduman Singh, Gurdeep Kaur and Miss Rani remained in judicial lock up. The order for release on bail an certainly be cancelled under Section 437 (5) or Section 439(2). Generally, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to the accused.

In State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 (2) SCC 411, the Supreme Court observed that the rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a nonbailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. The Supreme Court, therefore, observed that the power to take back in custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. The above said view was followed by this Court in Crl. M.A. No. 9172M/1992 re : Ram Chander and another v. State of Haryana, decided on November 2, 1992 : 1993(1) Recent Criminal Report 386. Herein also, there is nothing on the record to show that it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain their freedom during the trial. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.