Naib Singh vs State of Punjab

N.K. Kapoor, J.

The present petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code'') is for cancellation of bail granted to Surinder Singh in case FIR No. 25 dated 27.6.1995, under Sections 302/148/149/447 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Kurali, District Ropar.

Surinder Singh respondent is one of the accused in the aforesaid case which is pending before the Additional Sessions, Judge, Ropar. With a view of seek bail during the pendency of trial, Surinder Sigh approached this Court in April, 1996. His bail application was declined vide order dated April 16, 1996. Another application was filed by him which came up for hearing on 13.1.1997 and relief claimed was granted i.e. permitted him to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. While approaching this Court, by way of note appended to the petition he stated, "that the petitioner has not filed any other such petition previously to the knowledge of the undersigned." Besides it, in para No. 3 of this petition it was stated by the petitioner that he is in judicial lock up for almost 1 years and no evidence has so far been recorded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner with a view to seek cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 Surinder Singh highlighted two facts noted above i.e. that Surinder Singh did not approach this Court for grant of bail earlier and that no evidence has been led in the case so far, and thus stated that Surinder Singh accused misstated so in this petition with a view to get concession of bail and so the bail already granted deserves to be cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner with a view to prove that Surinder Singh''s averment that no evidence has been led so far is false drew my attention to the order dated 13.5.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar. A persual of the order reveals that on that date as many as six witnesses of prosecution were present, namely, Naib Singh, Bhag Singh, Nachhittar Singh, Mohan Singh, Dr. Kanwaljit Singh and Dr. Om Parkash. Evidence of these witnesses could not be recorded as another counsel had been engaged by the accused. Thus, on these facts, it has been argued that the earlier petition of Surinder Singh accused being based on misstatement of facts or suppression of true facts from the Court, concession of bail already granted deserves to be withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the respondentaccused argued that the factum of filing of earlier bail application and its dismissal by this Court was not known to him. Had it been known, he would have brought it to the notice of the Court. According to the counsel, in fact, this came to the notice of the Court when the counsel for the respondent put in appearance. Similarly, respondent Surinder Singh had no knowledge of the proceedings dated 13.5.1996 and precisely for this reason stated in his petition that no evidence has been led. Justifying the earlier order of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 13.1.1997, counsel argued that as held by the Apex Court in case reported as Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) JT (SC) 127, the cancellation of bail is not to be done in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial. Thus, the case needs to be examined in the ratio of the aforesaid judgment.

Having heard learned counsel for a while and on considering the submissions made in the light of material placed on record, I am of the view that the respondentaccused is guilty of making wrong statement in the petition as well as of withholding true facts from the Court and so on this ground alone he is not entitled to the concession of bail. As noticed earlier, his bail application was rejected on April 16, 1996. While approaching this Court again, no mention of dismissal of earlier application has been made. On the other hand, it has been stated that the petitioner did not file any other such petition previously. Similarly, in para No. 3 of that petition, respondentaccused Surinder Singh made averment to the effect that no evidence has been led for the last 1 years. This assertion is too incorrect. In the order dated 13.5.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar, it is stated that as many as six witnesses are present but their evidence could not be recorded as respondentaccused had engaged another counsel who sought adjournment. But for his fault all the witnesses who were present in the Court would have been examined by the Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, the respondentaccused cannot take any benefit of his own fault. No doubt, the accused is entitled to concession of bail if he is able to make out a case for such a concession but the matter invariably is to be examined in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. No person can be permitted to suppress true facts from the Court. Nonmentioning of earlier order declining bail cannot be construed to be an omission. Rather the same is a case of suppression of true facts. This by itself is sufficient to disentitle a person to grant of concession of bail. Accordingly, I accept this petition, cancel the order of bail dated 13.1.1997 and direct the respondent accused Surinder Singh to surrender to the Court forthwith.