Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 254 (RAJ)

Hawa Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-03

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—This order governs the disposal of bail cancellation application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Hawa Singh seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent no.2 Manish Kumar who has been granted bail vide order dated 24th June, 2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khetari. 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 ground of misrepresentation of the facts having placed by the learned counsel for the accused respondent before the Sessions court when the bail application was argued. Learned counsel contended that the learned trial court granted bail to the accused respondent No. 2 Manish Kumar on wrong facts and circumstances. The trial court ought to have considered the bail of the accused respondent only after the statements having been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The accused respondent has been posing threats to them and there is every likelihood that the accused may tamper the witnesses during trial, hence, the bail granted to the respondent deserves to be cancelled. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that bail was granted to the respondent no. 2 Manish Kumar by the learned Sessions Court on the ground that the accused was involved in the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. He further canvassed that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 5th July, 2010. By 24th June, 2010, the respondent no. 2 Manish Kumar was not the accused of the offence under Section 376 of IPC. Since, there was no allegation of rape against the respondent Manish Kumar upto 24th June, 2010, the learned Sessions Judge rightly allowed the bail and there was no reason not to admit the bail to the respondent no. 2 Manish Kumar. Otherwise too, there is no other ground to cancel his bail already granted to him. 5. Now, it is well settled that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether distinct from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondents have not abused the liberty of bail. 2 Manish Kumar. Otherwise too, there is no other ground to cancel his bail already granted to him. 5. Now, it is well settled that the parameters of accepting the bail are altogether distinct from the parameters of cancelling the bail already granted. The respondents have not abused the liberty of bail. The petitioner has not quoted any instance to prove that the respondents 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, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. 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 is 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.” 7. 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. 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.” 8. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of Smt. Rajbala vs. State of Rajasthan (2005(1) R.C.C. 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. 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.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has simply argued that the learned Sessions Court has granted the bail on untenable grounds but has failed to explain as to what are those untenable grounds which were lost sight of by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the court granted bail to the accused respondent on the basis of misrepresenta-tion of facts but the facts which are said to have been misrepresented have no bearing with the merits of the bail order. The issue emerging in the petition is as to whether there are grounds available on record to cancel the bail granted to the respondents. Merely arguing that the bail has been granted on misrepre-sentation of facts is not sufficient to cancel the bail. No such apprehension 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. 10. No such cogent or overwhelming circumstances have been put forth which are necessary for order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. 10. Nowt has been brought to our notice 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 ground to cancel the bail already granted to the respondent. 11. For these reasons, the petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail being bereft of merits and devoid of substance stands dismissed.