Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 781 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand Rana v. State of Rajasthan

2009-03-17

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2009
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Kailash Chand Rana seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 2 who has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18th October, 2008 rendered by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail on the following grounds:- (i) That the respondent No. 2 Ranjeet Singh is a history sheeter against whom as many as 25 criminal cases have been pending in different police stations. (ii) That the respondent No. 2 initially filed bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail but on his surrender in the court, the learned Special Judge, treated the anticipatory bail petition to be a petition as having filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (iii) That the learned Special Judge had no power to treat the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to be as having filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (iv) That the respondent No. 2 is a threat to the society. There is likelihood of his having tampered with the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated these grounds before me during his arguments and has craved that the bail granted to the respondent by Special Judge vide order dated 18.10.2008 by cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether distinct from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondent has not abused the liberty of his bail. The petitioner has not quoted and instance to prove that the respondent tampered with or endeavoured to tamper with any witness, posed any threat to the petitioner, tried to hide himself or hampered the investigation or the trial of the case. The bail already granted cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that the petitioner was a history sheeter, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The bail already granted cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that the petitioner was a history sheeter, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961) has held that: "rejection of bail when bail is applied for his one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made 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." 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Dolatram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) (1) Supreme Court Cases 349) that: "rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 7. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of Smt. Rajbala vs. State of Rajasthan (2005(1) RCC 289 = RLW 2005(1) Raj. 475) as under:- "It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. 475) as under:- "It is now well settled by a catena of cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court that the grounds for cancellation of bail are distinct from the considerations for grant of bail. The bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record to do so." 8. In view of the above legal position, the bail already granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled merely for the reason that the respondent is a history sheeter and has been involved in as many as 25 criminal cases. No apprehension such as has been shown by the petitioner that the interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice has been made or the concession of bail granted to the respondent has been abused in any manner or the respondent is likely to abscond or he shall tamper with the witnesses. No such cogent or overwhelming circumstances have been put forth which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. 9. Now has been brought to our notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the respondent has in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during intervening period. I do not find any strong ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. 10. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail by the petitioner is found to be devoid of force as also bereft of substance and the same stands dismissed.