Malati Das Baruah vs Hiren Das

Aftab H. Saikia, J.—Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

By this Misc. application, the petitioner has sought for rejection of the bail prayer made in the related Bail Application No. 2865/07 in connection with Khetri PS. Case No. 88/07 registered under Sections 498(A)/34 IPC along with the following prayer:

In the premises stated above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition and reject the bail application vide B.A. No. 2865/07 prayed by the Accused/ Petitioner in connection with Khetri P.S. Case No. 88/07 u/s 498(A)/34 I.P.C and/or pass such other order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the end of justice;

On meticulous scrutiny of the averments made in this miscellaneous application, this Court is of the view that it does not disclose the essential grounds as settled for cancellation of the bail prayer u/s 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

In a case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat, the Apex Court clearly observed that for cancellation of bail there must be a very cogent and overwhelming circumstances which were required to be placed on record by the person seeking such cancellation of bail.

In paragraph - 5 and 6 of Bhagirathsingh Judeja''s case (supra) it was held as under:

5...But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence....

6...Very cogent and overwhelming

circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And the trend toddy is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence....

In another case of Raghubir Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court in paragraph-22 observed as follows:

The order for release on bail may however be cancelled u/s 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 him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts.

It is established that the object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the victim and also create problems of law and order situation. However, in the instant application, on perusal of the statements made therein particularly the paragraph-3, none of the aforementioned factors namely, threatening the witnesses, tampering with the evidence, creating problems of law and order situation are found. In view of the above, this Court of the mew that this miscellaneous is devoid of any merit and hence the same stands dismissed.