Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1235 (MP)

Pawan v. Harbhajan Singh

2011-11-01

I.S.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Arguments on the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC by the applicant-Pawan heard. The applicant is involved in Crime No. 367/2011 of Police Station, Badwah, District Khargone registered under Sections 420, 272 of the IPC and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 2. It has been submitted by the applicant's Counsel that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the Court of Shri Vivek Saxena, JMFC, Badwah of Rs. 20,000/- and the applicant was released on bail. This case was registered on the complaint of Harbhajansingh. He filed a revision against the bail order, which was allowed, hence the bail order of the applicant has been cancelled and the applicant has been ordered to be surrendered before the Trial Court. 3. It has been argued by the applicant's Counsel that the revision was not maintainable and it has been mentioned by the Revisional Court in Paragraph 4, but this revision was treated as an application under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.PC and again in the last paragraph of the order, the revision was accepted. The order is not well founded. There is no ground for cancellation of the bail. Trial will take time, hence the application should be allowed. 4. The respondent has opposed the bail application. 5. Considered the circumstances. In the case of Ram Naresh Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Cri.LJ 2523, it has been held that order granting bail is interlocutory order, hence no revision lies in view of Section 397 (2) of the Cr.PC it was held by the Revisional Court in the impugned order that the revision was not maintainable. In the case of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Cri.LJ 2523, it has been held that order granting bail is interlocutory order, hence no revision lies in view of Section 397 (2) of the Cr.PC it was held by the Revisional Court in the impugned order that the revision was not maintainable. In the case of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cri.LJ 3712, it has been held that :- "the grounds for cancellation of bail under Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437 (1) or (2) or 439 (1) 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 of 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. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to." 6. Same view has been adopted in the case of Ram Naresh Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Cri.LJ 2523, but by the impugned order, the Court only came to the conclusion that the offence is serious one, hence the bail has been cancelled. 7. Under these circumstances, this bail application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of his surrender before the Court and his arrest, he be released on bail subject to his furnishing a-personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions :- (.1) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required. (2) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (2) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (3) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. C.C. as per rules.