Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 5 (JHR)

Ibrahim Mian v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-02

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all these petitioners had been granted bail by the trial Court but subsequently, bail of these petitioners were cancelled vide order dated 17.4.2010 on the ground that the petitioners at the time of grant of bail had suppressed' the fact that the prayer for similarly situated co-accused has been rejected by the Court and also on the ground that the petitioners has been extending threat to the witnesses. The said order has been challenged in this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that so far the first ground relating to for suppression off act is concerned that cannot be said to be suppression of the fact as the fact relating to rejection of the prayer of the co-accused was there on the record and the prosecution could have disclosed before the Court but since it was not disclosed by the prosecution the petitioners cannot be said to have suppressed the fact and that so far other ground regarding tampering of evidence is concerned the statement made on behalf of the informant and others before the police that they are being threatened is quite vague. 4. In this regard it was further submitted that the date time and place where the threat was given have not been mentioned and as such the report submitted by the police should not have been acted upon by the Court and hence the Court committed illegality in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners earlier and hence, it is fit to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 1993 Cri.L.J 251 to put forth the point that unless there is compelling circumstances, the Court ought not have cancelled the bail of the petitioners. 6. 5. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 1993 Cri.L.J 251 to put forth the point that unless there is compelling circumstances, the Court ought not have cancelled the bail of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that after the petitioners were released on bail they started threatening the witnesses and as such a petition was filed before the Court for cancellation of the bail upon which a report was called for from the Investigating Officer, who submitted its report dated 5.3.2010 after making enquiry that the accused persons had extended threat After the bail was cancelled, the petitioners were ordered to surrender before the Court below within seven days but they did not care to surrender before the Court below within seven days but they did' not care to surrender before the Court below and that some are still at large. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. I do find that the bail of the petitioners has been cancelled on two grounds first one is that the petitioners at the time of moving bail had suppressed the fact that the prayer for bail of the co-accused similarly situated had been rejected and secondly the petitioners after being released, were threatening the witnesses and thereby they were tempering with the evidence, However so far as the first ground is concerned that does not seem to be tenable as the fact that the prayer for bail of the similarly situated co-accused had been rejected was there on the record which could have been placed before the Court by the prosecution and as such, the petitioners cannot be said to have suppressed the fact and by suppressing the fact secured the bail. But so far other ground is concerned. I do find that the same is tenable as when the application for cancellation of bail was filed the petitioners were noticed and a report was called for from the concerned police station. The police pursuant to that made an enquiry, and did find that the accused persons on being released on bail, were extending threat by putting pressure to get the matter compromised. The police pursuant to that made an enquiry, and did find that the accused persons on being released on bail, were extending threat by putting pressure to get the matter compromised. That fact is sufficient to cancel the bail in view of the provision as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The object of sub-section (5) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to protect the interest of justice and to prevent it from being tampered with in any mariner by the •accused, Thus the bail granted to the accused can be cancelled if the accused after his release on bail tries to tamper with evidence or hampers the trial or investigation. Here in the instant case as has been reported that the accused persons were extending threat to the witnesses and thereby they can easily be said to have been tampering with the evidence, Therefore the court has not committed any illegality in cancelling the bail of the petitioners. 8. Accordingly. I do not find any merit in this application and hence, it is dismissed. Application dismissed.