Navneet Kumar vs Mohan Lal

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. moved by Navneet Kumar petitioner whereby he has prayed for cancellation of bail allowed to Mohan Lal respondent No. 1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 1.8.1998 in case FIR No. 109 dated 10.6.1997 Police Station City Abohor under Sections 302/306/34 IPC.

Before the merits of the petitioner''s prayer for cancellation of bail allowed to Mohan Lal respondent No. 1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 1.8.1998 in case FIR No. 109 (ibid) are gone into, it is necessary to allude to the facts constituting the said FIR.

Smt. Anju was married to Mohan Lal respondent No. 1 about 8 years ago. At the time of her marriage, according to her brother Navneet Kumar, adequate dowry had been given according to their capacity. About 1 year after marriage, there was estrangement between Anju and Mohan Lal and Mohan Lal started harassing her. Anju had two sons Akash aged six years and Bikram aged four years from the loins of Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal used to indulge in excesses on Anju. Those excesses were tolerated by Anju''s parental family as they were poor unable to give him rebuff. On Sunday preceding 10.6.1997 Mohan Lal went to his inlaws'' house and told his inlaws that Anju was not doing household chores. Navneet Kumar went to the house of the inlaws of his sister Anju. He called both Anju and Mohan Lal and advised Anju to perform household chores. Anju showed him the marks of beatings on her and told her brother that harassment and beatings were being given to her. Navneet Kumar asked her to accompany him. She refused to accompany him saying that if she accompanied him, her husband would not allow her to enter the house afterwards. In his presence, Anju''s motherinlaw Smt. Sopti Devi and husband Mohan Lal told Navneet Kumar that if Anju continued behaving like that she would be burnt to death and they would not bother about the expenses, they might have to incur in defending them.

On 10.6.1997, Navneet Kumar was called through a messenger by Anju''s motherinlaw and he, accordingly, reached the house of inlaws of Anju at about 8 a.m. At that time Mohan Lal was sleeping. He woke him up and asked him the reason why he had been called. Smt. Anju''s motherinlaw and her husband started talking bad of Anju saying that she had been tied to them. Navneet Kumar counselled them. After the tea was prepared, tea was served to the entire family. Navneet Kumar also took tea and then he went to the shoe shop where he was employed. At about 9.45 a.m., Rajesh Kumar son of Pirthi Chand who is son of elder brother of Mohan Lal came to Navneet Kumar and informed him that Anju had burnt and she had died. Navneet Kumar went to his house and alongwith his uncle Subhash came to the house of the inlaws of Anju and found burnt dead body of Anju lying in the residential room. According to Navneet Kumar, his sister had been compelled to snuff out life in her by her motherinlaw and her husband Mohan Lal because of daily quarrels and taunting by them. According to Navneet Kumar, Anju''s motherinlaw and her husband Mohan Lal told him that they had done what they wanted to do so and he could do what he wanted to do. Matter was reported to the police by Navneet Kumar petitioner. On the basis of his statement, this case was registered.

After investigation, Mohan Lal and his mother Sopti Devi were challaned under sections 302 and 306 IPC. They were charged under sections 302/34 IPC on 18.12.1997 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

Mohan Lal had sought bail and his prayer for bail was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. Mohan Lal approached this Court for bail. His prayer for bail was declined by Hon''ble B. Rai, J. vide order dated 2.4.1998 in Crl. Misc. No. 25174M of 1997. At the time when Hon''ble B. Rai, J. declined his prayer for bail, the case was lying fixed before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur for 6.4.1998 for prosecution evidence. On 6.4.1998 prosecution evidence could not be concluded.

Mohan Lal approached this Court over again for bail and this Bench passed the following order on 21.7.98 :

"Heard.

Learned DAG, Punjab has brought to my notice that the case stands fixed for prosecution evidence fro 23rd July, 1998. If prosecution is not able to conclude its entire evidence on 23rd July or on the adjourned date which shall be 25th of July the petitioner shall be admitted to bail by the learned Trial Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to direct the petitioner and his coaccused to cooperate with the learned Trial Court in the conclusion of the trial on the said dates.

A copy of this order be given dati to the petitioner and sent to the learned Trial Court for strict compliance."

Navneet Kumar alleges that for securing bail while approaching this Court over again, Mohan Lal gave wrong facts in his prayer for bail. He wrongly incorporated that the prosecution failed to produce its evidence on 6.4.1998. Mohan Lal was aware that on 6.4.1998, the case had been adjourned for 7.4.2998 for the simple reason that Sessions Judge was away to Fazilka and Abohar with the Hon''ble Inspecting Judge. On 7.4.1998, the case was adjourned for the same reason that the learned Sessions Judge was busy in the inspection by the Hon''ble High Court Judge and the case was adjourned to 20.5.1998. On 20.5.98 the learned Sessions Judge was away to Fazilka and Abohar for the inspection of jail and to tone up the administration. On 20.5.98 six witnesses were in attendance. They could not be examined due to the fact that the learned Sessions Judge did not hold the Court on that date. The case was adjourned to 23.7.1998. It is alleged by Navneet Kumar that the prosecution was not to blame if the trial remained unconcluded. Mohan Lal gave this impression while making prayer for bail to this court over again that prosecution was slack and not producing witnesses. Prosecution was not at all slack and there was on carelessness and slackness on the part of the prosecution in examining the prosecution evidence. Rather the Sessions Judge could not hold the Court as given in Annexure P3 and P4. Mohan Lal thus secured bail from this Bench by concealing true facts. It is further alleged by Navneet Kumar that if order dated 21.7.1998 had been brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, the learned Sessions Judge would have concluded the trial. JUDGMENT dated 21.7.1998 was conveyed to the learned Sessions Judge after 25.7.1998.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

Mohan Lal accused was in Central Jail, Ferozepur when order dated 21.7.1998 was passed by this Bench and, therefore, Mohan Lal could possibly not collect the certified copy of the said order. We cannot lay any blame on Mohan Lal if that order had not been brought to the notice of Sessions Judge, Ferozpur on or before 23.7.1998. On 23.7.1998 examinationinchief of Navneet Kumar PW was recorded. His crossexamination was deferred as the other witnesses namely Partap Singh who is stated to be Navneet Kumar''s father''s sister''s husband before whom the accused had allegedly made an extrajudicial confession was not present.

Learned counsel for Mohan Lal submitted that Navneet Kumar and Partap Singh had to be crossexamined together on one and the same day and, therefore, the case was adjourned. He submitted that if Jaipal etc. PWs were bound down, that was not the fault of the accused. Learned counsel for Mohan Lal submitted that there was no noncooperation by the accused with the learned Sessions Judge in the conclusion of the trial. Directions given by this Bench on 21.7.1998 would have come into play on 23.7.1998 i.e. when the case stood fixed before the learned Sessions Judge for recording evidence. On 23.7.98 nothing took place before learned Sessions Judge so that it could be smelt that the accused were not cooperating in the conclusion of the trial by the learned Sessions Judge.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for Navneet Kumar submitted that Mohan Lal alongwith his brother Pirthi Chand started threatening Navneet Kumar and the witnesses that if they depose against them in court, they would be dealt with. It was submitted that Mohan Lal is a dare devil and he started misusing the concession of bail. Thereupon, Navneet Kumar moved an application before the police vide report No. 46 dated 13.8.98 and he and his brother were proceeded in security proceedings by the SHO PS City Abohar. It was submitted that Mohan Lal persisted in threatening them. He threatened them even in the presence of the police. It was submitted that Partap Singh who is one of the material witnesses was also threatened that in case he dared speak a word against Mohan Lal at the time of recording evidence, he would be done to death.

Mohan Lal was in Jail for the last about one year and during that period, the trial remained unconcluded and it was in these circumstances that this Bench passed order on 21.7.98. Mohan Lal was ordered to be sent to jail in pursuance of order dated 4.9.1998 passed by this Bench. When the learned counsel for Navneet Kumar brought to this Court that Mohan Lal had obtained bail by concealing the material facts and further after securing bail Mohan Lal was misusing the concession of bail and was threatening Navneet Kumar and Partap Singh PWs who are material witnesses. Mohan Lal remained in Jail, during the period 10.9.1998 to 10.10.1998. On 21.9.1998 i.e. when the case stood fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, the prosecution could examine Navneet Kumar and Pratap Singh PWs, if there had been really any threat to them that if they did not resile they would be done to death or they would have to face the consequences. To me it appears that there was no threat to Navneet Kumar and Partap Singh PWs. Learned counsel for Mohan Lal submitted that the prosecution is not earnest in the conclusion of the trial but desires only this much that Mohan Lal should remain in and the trial should remain pending.

I do not see any reason to cancel the bail allowed to Mohan Lal by this Bench vide order dated 21.7.98. In Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 372 Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. 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 discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence." In this case, there was no concealment of facts by Mohan Lal before he procured order dated 21.7.1998 from this Bench, on 21.7.1998 i.e. when this Bench passed the order directing that he shall be admitted to bail by the learned trial Court if the trial remains unconcluded on 23.7.1998 or on the adjourned date which was 25.7.1998. This Crl. Misc. fails and is dismissed. Learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur is directed to conclude the trial at any rate positively before 24.12.1998. It is expected that the accused shall cooperate in the conclusion of the trial by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and will not raise any frivolous objection to the recording of evidence and thus forcing the adjournment. Bail allowed to Mohan Lal will stand cancelled if he hampers the trial and does not allow it to conclude before 24.12.1998. The learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur will prepone the case and post it for trial on weekly basis, if he feels that without preponing and posting it on weekly basis, he will not be able to comply with the aforesaid direction given by this Court.

Copy of this order be sent to learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur immediately for compliance.