Karam Chand vs Gurdev Singh alias Bhola

B.S. Nehra, J.

This order will dispose of a petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 1 and 2 by Dalbara Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his order dated 30.3.1992, copy Annexure P2, being illegal, result of wrong exercise of jurisdiction and constituting abuse of the process of the Court.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 are facing trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Ram Sarup in a case bearing first information report No. 216, dated 14.10.1991, registered in Police Station, Dhuri. On 29.1.1992, Shri Dalbara Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the application of one of the accused, viz. Gurdev Singh, in this case, for the grant of bail. However, within just about two months, the same learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30.3.1992 proceeded to allow the concession of bail not only to said Gurdev Singh but also to his coaccused Karnail Singh, without any valid ground.

The case against the accused was registered on the basis of the statement of PW Karam Chand. According to the prosecution case, on 14.10.1991, at about 5 p.m. in the area of Batuhan, Gurdev Singh and Karnail Singh armed with Lathis and their coaccused Gurjant Singh and Paramjit Singh armed with Gandasas caused injuries on the person of Ram Sarup. The latter died as a result of these injuries. The occurrence was witnesses by Raj Kumar son of Karam Chand and Bhim Singh alias China son of Ram Sarup deceased. The fatal injury is attributed to Gurdev Singh who was arrested on 24.11.1991. Challan against the accused was filed in the Court on 23.1.1992. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, on 29.1.1992, dismissed Gurdev Singh''s prayer for bail on the ground that fatal injuries had been attributed to him there was also strong motive behind the occurrence and further that the challan had been put in the Court. Another application for bail was moved in this case by not only Gurdev Singh but also his coaccused Paramjit Singh, Gurjant Singh and Karnail Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 30.3.1992 allowed the concession of bail not only to Gurdev Singh but also to his coaccused Karnail Singh merely because the disposal of the challan was likely to take some time. However, bail application qua Paramjit Singh and Gurjant Singh accused was dismissed by him as they were stated to have caused injuries to deceased with Gandasas.

To say the least, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30.3.1992 allowing the concession of bail to Gurdev Singh and Karnail Singh cannot be appreciated. No valid reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Judge while passing the said order in favour of Gurdev Singh and Karnail Singh. The mere fact that the disposal of the challan was likely to take some time could not constitute a ground for allowing bail to Gurdev Singh (whose earlier bail application had been dismissed on proper consideration) and Karnail Singh, especially when it has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 during the course of hearing of this petition that both these accused had dealt Lathi blows on the person of Ram Sarup deceased and as a result of these injuries, inter alia, he had died. This apart, the learned trial Judge has himself, in his first order dated 29.1.1992, observed the fatal injury on the person of Ram Sarup is also attributed to Gurdev Singh. Keeping in view this aspect it passes comprehension as to what prompted the learned Additional Sessions Judge to suddenly allow the concession of bail to Gurdev Singh and Karnail Singh. In the State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 24 (SC) : 1991(2) Crimes 529 , the allegations against the accused were that he had conspired and hatched the plot to murder the deceased, yet he was released on bail by the lower court. The Supreme Court had ordered the cancellation of bail in that case. In State of Maharashtra v. Captain Budhikota Subba Rao, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 612 (SC) : 1989(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 556 , it was held by the Supreme Court that once the application was rejected, there was no question of granting similar prayer (for bail). That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the facts and situation. The fact situation, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, means a substantial change which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely a cosmetic change which is of little or no consequence. The observations of the Apex Court in Captain Budhikota Subba Rao''s case (supra) have a direct bearing on the facts of the present case before this Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail to Gurdev Singh and Karnail Singh has not disclosed any substantial change in the circumstances of the case. The mere fact that he has chosen to record that the disposal of the challan is likely to take some time does not constitute a substantial change within just about two months of the previous order declining the prayer for bail of Gurdev Singh.

Before parting, it may be observed that this petition for cancellation of bail has also been supported by Shri R.K. Rathore, Advocate, appearing for the State of Punjab.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the bail granted by Shri Dalbara Singh Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his order dated 30.3.1992 is hereby cancelled. Nonbailable warrants of arrest be issued and respondents No. 1 and 2 be sent to judicial lock up to stand trial along with their coaccused.