Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 122 (MP)

Hukumchand v. Bhojraj

2001-02-06

A.K.GOHIL

body2001
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant in this case is that in Crime No. 38/2000 registered at PS Industrial Area, Dewas for the charges under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC this Court had granted bail to Non-applicant No. 1 Bhojraj @ Munna in M.Cr.C. No. 1008 of 2000 by order dated 17.4.2000 and the Sessions Judge has granted to the other co-accused persons Non-applicants No.2 to 5. His further submission is that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected application for cancellation of bail of all the Non- applicants No.2 to 5 on the ground that the allegations made in the application are not found prima facie true vide order dated 17.10.2000. The applicant/complainant has filed this application u/s 439(2) read with section 482 Cr.PC, for cancellation of bail of Non-applicants No. 1 to 5 on the ground that they are involved in tampering evidence and unduly trying to induce and threaten the witnesses and for that reports were lodged before the police and Shri Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for the cancellation of their bail. Shri Ashok Shukla. learned counsel for the Non-applicants/accused persons refuted the allegations and submitted that the applicant had filed an application on 17.10.2000 for cancellation of the bail but the same has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Dewas on the ground that the allegations are not found prima facie true. Secondly his submission is that the trial was fixed on 11.12.2000 to 14.12.2000, but no such complaint was ever made before the trial Court. On 11.12.2000, 12.12.2000 and 13.12.2000 the material witnesses were not examined on the ground that application for cancellation of bail is pending. His further submission is that the State has not filed any application for cancellation of bail. The Supdt. of Police submitted a report that because of some dispute between the parties due to elections the allegations and counter allegations are made against each other. The reports lodged by the applicant Hukumchand were not found true by the police. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record and various documents produced by them. Since the parties are having political rivalry and as per police report the complainant party is trying to get the bail cancelled. The reports lodged by the applicant Hukumchand were not found true by the police. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record and various documents produced by them. Since the parties are having political rivalry and as per police report the complainant party is trying to get the bail cancelled. It is not disputed before me that the applicant has not filed any complaint about tampering or threatening the witnesses, or misuse of liberty before the trial Court or for providing any protection. No doubt in a proper cases the High Court has inherent powers to cancel the order of grant of bail to the accused persons and to order that the applicant be rearrested and committed to jail custody, but this extraordinary power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with due care and caution, unless there are strong grounds for cancellation of bail, the bail once granted should not be cancelled. It has been held in AIR 1978 SC 179 that the question of cancellation of bail u/s 439(2) of CrPC is different from admission to bail u/s 439(1) CrPC. The two paramount considerations, viz., likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. It has been further held in AIR 1987 SC 149 Raghubir Singh's case that generally, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence, etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts and obviously there must be special reasons and it should not be merely on vague allegations of tampering with prosecution witnesses. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts and obviously there must be special reasons and it should not be merely on vague allegations of tampering with prosecution witnesses. In view of the above I do not find that any strong ground is made out for cancellation of bail. Consequently this application has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. However, S.P. Dewas is directed to provide full protection to the prosecution witnesses and to see that the witnesses shall not be terrorised or tampered by the accused persons. The trial Court is also directed to take care in the matter and to see that the witnesses present in the Court are examined and ordinarily an adjournment should not be granted. The witnesses present in the Court should be examined on the same day and if it is not possible then on the next day positively on day-to-day basis. As per order sheet dated 13.12.2000 it was not proper for the Special P.P. to seek adjournment and not to examine the eye witnesses on the ground that the application u/s 439(2) CrPC is pending. There was no occasion for Special P.P. to ask for adjournment on this ground. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case learned Sessions Judge shall take care of all these allegations and counter allegations between the parties and to conclude the trial as early as possible.