Sampuran Singh vs Jarnail Singh and anr.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

These two petitoins Criminal Misc. No. 12620M of 1991 Sampuran Singh v. Jarnail Singh and another and Criminal Misc. 13S52M of 1991 State of Punjab v. Jarnal Singh have been filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to'' Jarnail Singhy respondent by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 1781991 in case FIR No. 36 dated 761991 under Sections 306, 511 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station, City, Mansa.

This case was registered against Jarnail Singh on the basis of a dying declaration Made by his wife Kulwant Kaur deceased. According to the allegations made in. the dying declaration, Kulwant Kaur had set herself ablaze after sprinkling kerosene oil on hereself as Jarnail Singh was having illicit intimacy with Raj Kumar wife of his elder brother. Kulwant Kaur tred to persuade him from having any connection with Raj Kumari but he did not agree. This fact was also mentioned in the dying declaration that when Kulwant Kaur caught fire, Jarnail Singh tried to extinguish the same by throwing water and then he took her to the hospital where she remained admitted with 45% burns.

After the registration of the case Jarnail Singh applied for his release on bail but his application was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his order dated 1671991. His second application for bail was granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order Annexure P/2. The petitioners alleged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly used his judicial discretion in allowing bail to Jarnail Singh, when, his earlier bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for Sampuran Singh petitioner contended that when the bail has been allowed by. the Court of Sessions then the High Court a, superior Court can examind the propriety or legality of an order passed on merits and, that it cannot be a nee essary precondition that other supervening factors are proved. The High Court can cancel the order granting bail where judicial discretion vested in a subordinate Court was exercised in an improper manner. In support of his, contention he placed reliance on the case of H. C. Gaur v. Rakcsh Vij and another, 1990 Marriage Law Journal 171 and Major Singh v. Gurdev Singh and others, 1991(3) RCR 73 . I find. that the principle laid down in those authorities cannot be disputed but the facts of these cases are quite different and the findings arrived at cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Both the cases were under Section 302 IPC and in the case of H. C. Gaur (supra) the wife sustained 90 per cent burns and died in the husband''s house Bail moved by the husband on earlier, occasions were dismissed by the trial Judge as well as by the High Court and subsequently the bail was granted by the trial Court on the ground that the trial was not to be completed soon. Similarly, bail granted to one of the accused in the case of Major Singh (supra) was cancelled on the ground that he had caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in the fracture of two ribs and this fracture caused death. In the instant case the wife of the accused Jarnail Singh committed suicide and when the accused found her burning he made all efforts to save her. So it cannot be said that the judicial discretion was not exercised properly or the order. granting bail was perverse. In the case of of Bhagirath Singh v. The State of Gujarat, 1984 (2) CLR 181 it was held:

"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for ordering cancellation of the bail. Power to grant or refuse bail is not to be exercised by way of, punishment before trial. Only material considerations for the Court are : (i) whether the accused would be readily available, and (ii) whether he is likely to misuse the concession of bail by tempering with the evidence. Discretion of the trial Court allowing bail to an accused person is not to be lightly interfered with."

Similarly in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Dev Raj and others, 1983(1) CLR 345 it was observed:

"It is easier to reject a bail application in a nonbailable 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."

In this case after the Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of Jarnail Singh, the Additional Sessions Judge granted bail. The discretion might or might not have been exercised properly but at least the order cannot be said to be perverse. There is no allegation against Jarnail Singh of interference with the course of justice nor there art other well established grounds for cancellation of bail. I, therefore, find no merit in these petitions for cancellation of the bail granted to Jarnail Singh and dismiss the same.