Shiv Darshan Singla vs Sham Lal

S.K. Jain, J.

A case under Section 304B, read with Section 201 IPC was registered in Police Station City, Panipat, vide FIR No. 251, dated 7.4.1992, against Sham Lal respondent and three others. Sham Lal moved an application for bail which was rejected on 30.4.1992. He again moved an application which was allowed on 21.5.1992. Against this order of bail, the brother of the deceased has filed this petition under Section 439(2) Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of Sham Lal.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that (i) the death had taken place within seven years of marriage, and (ii) that the first bail application was disallowed on 30.4.1992 whereas the second bail application was allowed on 28.5.1992, although no fresh circumstances had supervened.

On the other hand, Shri K.S. Ahluwalia, has argued supporting the impugned order.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. A perusal of the order datd 30.4.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, declining the bail of the respondent Sham Lal would show that the main ground which had weighed with him in rejecting the bail was that there were three other coaccused who had not been apprehended by then. A reading of the impugned order shows that the challan had been put up in the committing Court and all the three coaccused, namely, Chander Bhander Bhan, Parmod and Sushila had been kept in column No. 2. It is also mentioned in the last para of this order that after the death which took place on 27.3.1992. FIR was lodged on 7.4.1992. The cremation was attended by the parents, brothers and sisters of the decreed.

In this petition it is not even pleaded that the respondent was hampering with the fair trial of the case or that he was in any way tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is only in cases where it is alleged that the accused persons either by subordinate or intimidating the witnesses were obstructing the smooth progress of a fair trial. In Talab Hazi Hussain v. Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376, followed in Raghubir Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149 and Mohali Ram v. Roshan Lal and others, Criminal Misc. No. 10801M91, decided by a Single Bench of this Court on November 2, 1991, it was held as under :

"There can be no more important of the ends of justice than the uninterrupted progress of a fair trial, and it is for continuance of such a fair trial that the (inherent) powers of the High Courts are sought to be invoked by the prosecution in cases where it is alleged that accused persons, either by suborning or intimidating witnesses, are obstructing the smooth progress of a fair trial. Similarly, if an accused person who is released on bail jumps bail and attempts not run to a foreign country to escape the trial, that again would be a case where the exercise of the (inherent) power would be justified in order to compel the accused to submit to a fair trial and not to escape its consequences by taking advantage of the fact that he has been released on bail and by absconding to another country."

In the present case, the State has not moved any application for cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent. As mentioned earlier there is absolutely no allegation that the respondent was misusing the concession of bail or was hampering the progress of a fair trial. There is no material on record which could show that after the grant of bail the respondent had tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence or threatened or intimidated the witnesses.

In the absence of the above said material, I do not find it a fit case for cancellation of bail of Sham Lal respondent. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.