Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 198 (HP)

Dharam Pal Singh v. Surjeet Kaur @ Jassi

2012-04-16

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has filed F.I.R. bearing No. 262/2011 dated 19.11.2011 under sections 363, 366 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against respondents No.1 and 2 and Anand Singh. According to him, his daughter, namely, Harpreet Kaur has studied upto 9th standard. She has left her studies from 10th standard. He had been working as constable in I.T.B.P. His daughter has been kidnapped/abducted by the respondents No.1 and 2 and Sonu with the help of one Amit. He tried to trace his daughter but to no avail. According to him, his daughter might have been forced to marry son of Anand Singh. 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 were arrested by the police in sequel to registration of FIR No. 262/2011 dated 19.11.2011. They applied for regular bail on 21.12.2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail on 4.1.2012. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2012 (Annexure P-1). 3. Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan has strenuously argued that in the present case respondents No.1 and 2 could not be enlarged on bail taking into consideration the gravity of offence and stage of investigation. He also contended that respondents No.1 and 2 are aware about the whereabouts of Sonu and Harpreet Kaur. 4. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar has supported the order dated 4.1.2012. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. 6. Respondents No.1 and 2 are mother and brother of Sonu. Sonu and Harpreet Kaur eloped on 19.11.2011. Respondents No.1 and 2 have only been arrested by the police on the pretext that they knew about the whereabouts of Sonu and Harpreet. Father of Sonu, namely, Anand Singh has also been enlarged on bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned order while enlarging respondents No.1 and 2 on bail. This Court need not interfere with the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judge has put the following three conditions while enlarging respondents No.1 and 2 on bail : (1) That the petitioners 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 them from disclosing any fact to the court or the police. Additional Sessions Judge has put the following three conditions while enlarging respondents No.1 and 2 on bail : (1) That the petitioners 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 them from disclosing any fact to the court or the police. (2) That the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor will try to win over the prosecution witness or terrorise in any manner. (3) That the petitioner shall make themselves available as and when required to do so by investigating agency or the Ld. Court as the case may be. 7. The petitioner has failed to point out that respondents No.1 and 2 have misused the bail granted to them. The bail could only be cancelled on the basis of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and not in routine manner. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 have held that the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Their Lordships have further held that 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 the bail, broadly 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, including on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding. Their Lordships have further held that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. 9. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondents No.1 and 2 have tried to interfere with due course of administration of justice or in any manner have abused the bail granted to them and they are absconding. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.