Karam Singh vs State of Haryana

B. Rai, J.

This application under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to Vijay Pal respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.6.1997 in case FIR No. 53 dated 28.1.1997 under sections 498A/304B IPC registered at police station Sadar Sonepat at the instance of Karam Singh petitioner father of the deceased wife of Vijay Pal.

After the registration of the case Vijay Pal and Ankur Devi could not be arrested by the police which led the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat to issue nonbailable warrants against them on 11.4.1997 returnable on 25.4.1997. After the issuance of nonbailable warrants, Vijay Pal and Ankur Devi moved the Court of Sessions Judge, Sonepat for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, Ved Pal and Ankur Devi were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24.4.1997.

It has been contended that the accused are influential persons having inflow of foreign currency as is evident from the orders of the Courts below and they are trying to impress upon the prosecution witnesses and threatening them not to depose against them. It is alleged that on 19.9.1997 when the petitioner along with his son Balwinder Singh and other witnesses went to the Court, Vijay Pal accused threatened the witnesses and the petitioner that if they came to Sonepat to give evidence against them they would face dire consequences. It is further contended that earlier also Vijay Pal visited Swinder Singh son of Ram Kishan resident of village Sataundi who is one of the witnesses and threatened him not to visit Sonepat Court for giving evidence against him. In these circumstances, the learned counsel argued that the bail granted by the Sessions Judge to Vijay Pal accused respondent No. 2 deserves to be cancelled.

There appears to be no substances in the contentions raised. It cannot be disputed that rejection of the bail application is easier than cancellation of bail. Once the bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the applicant has to make out sufficient grounds for cancellation of bail. It is not the case of the applicant that any application for cancellation of bail on the alleged threat extended to the petitioner and the witnesses was made to the learned Sessions Judge with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also not the case of the applicant that Swinder Singh son of Ram Kishan who is stated to be a prosecution witnesses in the case ever made such application to the learned Sessions Judge. The allegations levelled are of general nature. Not only this, the Doctor who conducted the medicolegal examination of the dead body of Mokesh deceased and formal witnesses have already been examined and now the case is fixed for 21.4.1998. It is expected that in all probabilities the remaining witnesses would be examined on the said date. Karam Singh, the first informant and father of the deceased is not likely to restrain himself from coming to the Court to depose against the accused persons at the trial on account of the alleged threat given to him by respondent No. 2. It is also not the case of the applicant that respondent No. 2 is tampering with any evidence produced by the prosecution or that he or his coaccused Ankur Devi who is on bail have not made themselves available to the Court for facing trial on earlier occasion or in future they would not be available to the Court during the trial.

Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that no sound ground for cancellation of bail is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed.