Mohinder Singh vs Sukhdip Rai

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 1 to 3. The petition is filed by the complainant. The respondents were arrested in connection with the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a complaint case titled Mohinder Singh v. Sukhdip Rai pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were released on bail by the order of this Court on 27.9.1996.

The reasons put forth by the petitioner for cancellation of bail are not on merits of the case as such but the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse of the discretion of bail exercised in their favour. It is the contention of the petitioner that after getting bail the respondents No. 1 to 3 (private respondents) started harassing the complainant and his witnesses to settle the matter outside the court. The petitioner has filed copies of two subsequent complaints annexures P/2 and P/3. Annexure P/2 is the complaint made by witness Dharam Singh to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the annexure P/3 is the complaint made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Chandigarh. Annexure P/2 is dated 10.10.1996 and annexure P/3 is dated 22.10.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of the fact that the witnesses and the complainant are being threatened, the private respondents are misusing the discretion exercised in their favour by this court to grant bail and, therefore, he contended that the bail granted to the private respondents be cancelled. He further argued that case has been adjourned from time to time but the evidence could not be recorded as the complainant and the witnesses apprehended danger at the hands of the accused party and contended that if they dare to go to the Court, they will not be spared.

Mr. Cheema, counsel for the private respondents argued that both annexures P/2 and P/3 are vague and do not mention as to who carried which weapon and who were the witnesses of the occurrence. He also argued that there is delay in making complaints annexures P/2 and P/3. Annexure P/2 mentions the incident of 3.10.1996 whereas the complaint was made on 10.10.1996. Annexure P/3 is regarding incident of 2.10.1996 and it is dated 22.10.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read over to me para 5 of annexure P/2 in which it is stated that SHO, Police Station Kalanaur was informed immediately but he sided with the accused party and took no action. Similar version is found in para 7 of annexure P/3. He argued that the allegations are virtually identical so as to lead to the conclusion that they are drafted by the same person. Learned DAG, Punjab has argued that police investigated both the applications annexures P/2 and P/3 and found that they were false. However, it can be seen that annexure P/3 though is subsequent complaint but does not mention about the threat given to the witness Dharam Singh as mentioned in annexure P/2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is mentioned in annexure P/3 that threats have been given to the prosecution witnesses but when the threat was known to the petitioner, he should have specifically mentioned the same as to who gave threat to whom along with details thereof. The petitioner does not mention in his complaint as to when witness Dharam Singh met him and told him about the threat. Witness Dharam Singh also does not state that he told the complainant about the threat. Moreover, there is delay in making complaints as stated above. The complainant should have made complaints to the higher authorities at the initial stage.

Rejection of bail is one thing and the cancellation of bail which is already granted is another. It will not be properprudent to cancel the bail unless there are cogent reasons shown by the petitioner.

In view of the above position, this petition deserves to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed.