Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1294 (PNJ)

Ram Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-11-01

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. The petitioner by way of filing this petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prays for cancellation of bail granted to Satbir and Rajbir accused in FIR No. 45 dated 14.3.1998, under Sections 323/302/304 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Satbir and Rajbir, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, along with co- accused are facing trial for the murder of Rajesh son of Ram Singh, petitioner. They were released on bail as per order dated 11.11.1998 passed by this Court. Copy of the order is Annexure P-1. While on bail, they are threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and on account of their nefarious activities, proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against them. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for the cancellation of bail. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their reply have submitted that the averments contained in the petition are incorrect. It is contended that earlier also the complainant had moved an application for cancellation of bail and the same was dismissed as per order Annexure R-1. 4. I have heard Shri S.S. Dinarpur, counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Bali, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 5. The petitioners grievance is that on 15.11.1999 at about 8.00 P.M. Pala, Jagga @ Jagdish and Bhuppa sons of Amar Singh Dhanak along with their brother Rajbir came to his house. At that time Pala was under the influence of liquor. He abused his son Balwan and thereafter all the aforesaid persons gave beatings to his wife Chameli and his son Balwan because about 1-1/2 years ago they had committed the murder of his son Rajesh. In order to put pressure on them so that they may not give evidence in the Court, they are threatening them with dire consequences. The matter was reported to the police and the relevant portion of Annexure P-3 reads as under :- "For carrying out the enquiry of the aforesaid application, I, Head Constable along with Constable Rajinder Singh No. 280 visited village Dahar and after summoning both the parties verified the facts of the case. During the course of enquiry Rajbir son of Ram Dia caste Dhanak, all of a sudden acquired a very hot frame of mind and had a scuffle with the applicant Ram Singh. During the course of enquiry Rajbir son of Ram Dia caste Dhanak, all of a sudden acquired a very hot frame of mind and had a scuffle with the applicant Ram Singh. I, Head Constable with the help of my colleague Constable and with the help of other persons of the village controlled Rajbir and finding that the peace can be disturbed at any time, arrested accused Rajbir son of Ram Dia caste Dhanak, resident of village Dahar under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. Had we not taken the aforesaid step any serious incident would have been committed by the accused persons." 6. From the enquiry made by the police coupled with the fact that in the presence of the police officials Rajbir had scuffled with Ram Singh, applicant, it is sufficient to hold that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are influential persons. They are exerting pressure on the petitioner so that he may not appear as a witness or he may not produce evidence in the Court. The fact that earlier similar application was dismissed would not be an impediment for the purpose of consideration of this application because at that time it was dismissed on the ground that the material placed on the record was not enough to show that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had misused the concession of bail, whereas in the present application, the report of the police official in the Calendera under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C., is sufficient to hold that the aforesaid respondents are not entitled to the concession of bail. 7. In Raghubir Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1986(4) SCC 481, it has been held that the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) Cr.P.C. are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled where : (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Crl. Misc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Crl. Misc. is accepted and the bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is hereby cancelled. 9. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the C.J.M., Panipat for immediate compliance, by issuing warrants of arrest as above.