Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 392 (JHR)

Bijma Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2007-05-04

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2007
ORDER D.P. Singh, J. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. This Cr. Misc. application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bokaro, dated 21.8.2003 by which the bail granted to these petitioners by the learned ACJM, Bokaro has been cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Admittedly the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 364, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with B.T.P.S. Case No. 40 of 2001, remanded in judicial custody and their prayer for bail was earlier rejected by the same Court on 6.7.2001. However, by order dated 18.8.2001 the same Court allowed the prayer for bail. Hence the prayer for cancellation of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 4. The petitioners asserted in this petition that the learned Sessions Judge has committed a mistake of law by cancelling the bail bonds as the bail granted once should not have been interfered and cancelled except on the ground of misuse of privilege of bail enumerated under provisions of the CrPC. Therefore the order dated 21.8.2003 may be quashed. 5. In support of this the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Atanu Banerjee relied upon 1995(1) SCC 349 , 2004(3) SCC 388 and 2004 (11) SCC 166. It is further submitted that the prayer for bail was allowed on the merit by the learned ACJM but the impugned order cancelled the bail on the grounds, which are not valid. 6. Learned APP opposes and submits that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the bail bonds because of fact that the learned Court below has committed serious mistake and granted the bail on facts beyond the records. 7. I have gone through the orders dated 18.8.2001 and 21.8.2003. It is apparent from the order dated 18.8.2001 that the prayer for bail of these petitioners were refused on merit by the same Court on 6.7.2001. However, afterwards the prayer for bail was again made on the ground that in the supervision note by Dy. S.P. mentions the facts otherwise. The learned ACJM relied upon the said supervision notes of the case in which the petitioners were accused as well as supervision note of B.T.P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001 in which the informant of this case was made accused by the petitioners to admit the petitioners on bail. S.P. mentions the facts otherwise. The learned ACJM relied upon the said supervision notes of the case in which the petitioners were accused as well as supervision note of B.T.P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001 in which the informant of this case was made accused by the petitioners to admit the petitioners on bail. The learned Sessions Judge has considered these aspects at length. He has further observed that the grant of bail by the learned ACJM within a month after refusing it. Considering supervision note of two cases was for extraneous consideration. 8. Their Lordships in 1995(1) SCC 349 has been pleased to hold that the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge in the fact of that case were proper. Therefore the cancellation of bail by the High Court was not justified. The fact of this case are otherwise as the learned ACJM has committed serious mistake by considering the supervision note of too different cases while granting bail to the petitioners that two after rejection of the earlier prayer for bail. I further find that their Lordships in held that the bail cancelled by the Honble Calcutta High Court for non fulfillment of assurance to arrive at compromise which was the basis of grant of bail by the trial Court. In 2004(11) SCC 166 their Lordship have been pleased to hold that considering the prayer for cancellation of bail, the High Court should not appraise the evidence as a Court of appeal. In the said case the learned Court below has granted bail to the accused when the police has not asked for police remand and on ground of illness. It is undisputed that once a bail is granted to an accused on merit, the cancellation of bail must be on grounds of serious nature of allegations like tampering of evidence, threatening of the witnesses, possibility of fleeing from the jurisdiction as well as delay in trials. The grounds for grant of bail have been elaborately discussed and laid down by the Honble Apex Court in , and . 9. The grounds for grant of bail have been elaborately discussed and laid down by the Honble Apex Court in , and . 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, where I find that the learned ACJM having exceeded his jurisdiction by reconsidering the prayer for bail of these petitioners which he has already rejected on merit on 21.7.2001 and having gone through supervision note of B.T.P.S. Case No. 40 of 2001 and B.T.P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001 has committed serious illegality. At the same time, I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro having noticed the petitioners and after going through the materials on record found it fit and proper to cancel the said bail granted to the petitioners. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners could not inform this bench regarding the stage of trial or whether the petitioners are appearing before the trial Court in spite of the directions made by the learned Sessions Judge on 21.8.2003. Therefore, the progress in the trial of the case of the petitioners has been stalled. 11. After detailed consideration, I find that the bail granted by the learned ACJM on the ground mentioned in his order dated 18.8.2001 was definitely not proper. I have no option but to agree with the view of the learned Sessions Judge. 12. Accordingly, I, find that the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, this Cr MP is dismissed.