Kharati Lal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.

Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 22.01.2018 vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioners namely Kharati Lal, Gopal

Krishan and Pardeep, was cancelled by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula.

While issuing notice of motion on 20.02.2018, arrest of the petitioners was stayed by this Court.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the only ground taken for cancelling the bail of the petitioners, in the impugned order is that when the co-accused

Ranbir Singh was arrested, he had suffered a disclosure statement on 20.12.2017 that he was planning to surrender long back but on the asking of the

petitioners, who were on bail, he did not surrender. It is further stated by him that the petitioners were pressurising him and other accused persons not

to surrender.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula that by exerting such pressure on the

co-accused not to surrender before the Court, they have misused the concession of bail is erroneous as the petitioners have neither misused the bail,

threatened any witness or violated the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Learned senior counsel has relied upon “1978 AIR (SC) 961,The State through the Delhi Administration vs. Sanjay Gandhiâ,€ wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

“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

non-bailable 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 fact that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the inference that the accused has won

them over. brother,a sister or a parent who has seen the commission of crime, may resile in the Court from a statement recorded during the course of

investigation. That happens instinctively, out of natural love and affection, not out of persuasion by the accused. The witness has a stake in the

innocence of the accused and tries therefore to save him from the guilt. Likewise, an employee may, out of a sense of gratitude-, oblige the employer

by uttering an untruth without pressure or persuasion. In other words, the objective fact that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a

causal connection with the subjective involvement therein of the respondent. Without such proof, a bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the off

chance or on the supposition that witnesses have been won over by the accused. Inconsistent testimony can no more be ascribed by itself to the

influence of the accused than consistent testimony, by itself, can be ascribed to the pressure of the prosecution. Therefore, Mr. Mulla is right that one

has to countenance a reasonable possibility that the employees of Maruti like the approver Yadav might have, of their own volition, attempted to

protect the respondent from involvement in criminal charges. Their willingness now to oblige the respondent would depend upon low much the

respondent has obliged them in the past.It is therefore necessary for the prosecution to show some act or conduct on the part of the respondent from

which a reasonable inference may arise that the witnesses have gone back on their statements as a result of an intervention by or on behalf of the

respondent.â€​

It is thus submitted that for passing an order cancelling the bail involves review of the earlier order and there is no allegation against the petitioners that

they have either threatened any of the prosecution witnesses or has misused the concession of bail. It is further submitted that the petitioners are

regularly appearing before the trial Court and are facing the trial.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Ashok Kumar, has however, opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioners had put

pressure on the co-accused namely Ranbir Singh not to surrender before the trial Court and it has come in the disclosure statement dated 20.12.2017

made by Ranbir Singh that though he wanted to surrender but on the asking of the petitioners, he did not surrender for a long time.

In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 101 “Ms. X vs. State of Telanganaâ€, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that bail once granted, should not be cancelled, unless there are cogent reasons based on supervening event. Learned

Senior Counsel has also relied upon 2018(1) RCR (Criminal) 967, “Lachhman Dass vs. Resham Chand Kaler and anotherâ€, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that there are different parameters for granting the bail and for cancellation of the bail.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present petition.

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Gandhi's case (supra), the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, while cancelling the

bail of the petitioners has not followed the proper procedure and has rather decided the application for cancellation of bail in a manner as if the

application for bail is to be rejected. Whereas, the criteria for cancelling the bail is on different footing and there are specific grounds on which the bail

can be cancelled and the impugned order is non speaking qua the same.

In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.01.2018 is set aside.

The petition stands disposed of.