Sukhram Singh vs Gurdev Singh

S.K. Jain, J.

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6225M of 1992 was moved on behalf of Gurdev Singh under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case F.I.R. No. 143 dated 16.9.1991 under Sections 302/307/364/323/34 the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Mukatsar, District Faridkot. This Court vide order of June 10, 1992, had ordered his release on bail. The above said order reads as under :

"This is an appliction for grant of bail in a pending case. Mr. Gill appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is a young boy of 19 years, only an injury on nonvital part of the body i.e. left arm is sttributed to him. He has been in custody since November, 1991.

Keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the circumstances of the case, it appears to be just and fair to release him on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. I order accordingly."

The complainant Sukh Ram Singh has filed this petition under Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of his bail on the grounds :

i) that the age of Gurdev Singh on the date of occurrence was 231/2 years;

ii) that the injury attributed to him was on vital part of the body of the deceased; and

iii) that Gurdev Singh had misused the concession of bail in so far as he had threatened the independent witness Neela Singh, Ramdasia which resulted in initiation of proceedings under Section 107/151 Code of Criminal Procedure against him.

Mr. GIll, learned counsel for the respondent has argued denying all the above three grounds.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have also perused the record.

True translation of the First Information Report has been reproduced in para No. 2 of this Criminal Miscellaneous petition. Relevant part there of is reproduced below :

"Gurdev Singh alias Gewri gave a Kasauli blow to my uncle Jugraj Singh hitting him on his left arm."

Submission on behalf of the petitioner, herein, is that in the First Information Report which is in Punjabi left arm has been described as `Dola''. All the injuries were found sufficient to cause death collectivity and individually.

Be that as it may, the facts are :

(i) the injury in question was found on the left arm of the deceased which was a non vital part of his body;

(ii) no reliance could be placed on the birth entry in the original Chowkidara register which was brought by learned counsel as no reliance could be placed on such an entry since it has not yet been connected with the person concerned; and

(iii) there is nothing on the record to show that Gurdev Singh had tampered with any of the prosecution witnesses. It has not been substantiated that at the instance of Neela Singh Ramdasia, alleged eye witness of the occurrence in this case, proceeding under Section 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated against Gurdev Singh.

Relevant part of para No. 1 of the reply on behalf of the respondent is reproduced below :

"On 16.9.1991 Neela Singh and Sukh Ram Singh came towards the house of the accused and started abusing Gurdev Singh respondent. Balwinder Singh coaccused and Neela Singh gave dang blows to Gurdev Singh respondent and in his defence Gurdev Singh respondent and Balwinder Singh also gave a blow to each to Neela Singh and Sukh Ram Singh. Thereafter Gurdev Singh respondent and Balwinder Singh went to the house of Comrade Baljit Singh while Sukh Ram and Neela Singh went towards the house of Neela Singh. After some time Sukh Ram and Beant Singh armed with Gandasas each and Neela Singh and Makhan Singh armed with Dangs went to the houses of the accused persons and attacked the lady members Surjit Kaur and Parsin Kaur. On hearing their cries Tej Singh coaccused came from nearby Narma filed while Gurdev Singh respondent and Balwinder Singh came from the house of Baljit Singh and saw Neela Singh and Makhan giving dang blow to Parsin Kaur and Surjit Kaur. Jug Raj Singh and Sukh Ram Singh and Beant Singh caused injuries with their gandasas to Balwinder Singh, Gurdev Singh respondent and Tej Singh petitioners Neela Singh and Makhan also gave them injuries with dangs as a result the respondent his coaccused and their family members suffered as many as 16 injuries including two grievous injuries on the persons of Taj Singh and one of these grievous injuries was upon his head, whereas the complainant party received 14 injuries. The injuries to the complainant party were given in selfdefence."

In view of the above allegations, it is not expedient to comment on merits as at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to who was the aggressor party.

Besides, what has been stated above, the rejection of bail, when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. 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 involved the review of a decision already made by 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. The Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978(2) SCC 111 had observed that power to take back in custody on accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercise with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate case when, by a preponderance of probabilities, it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. Here is this case by a preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be said that Gurdev Singh accused was interfering with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses nor there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances, calling for an order cancelling the bail of Gurdev Singh.

In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.