JUDGMENT

A.M. Ahmadi, CJI - Special leave granted.

2. The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 19.4.1995 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which cancelled the bail granted to the appellant by the same Court on 11.10.1994.

3. The facts that are relevant for our consideration can be briefly set out as follows. The appellant, Kashmira Singh (hereinafter called "the accused"), was arrested subsequent to the registration of an F.I.R. upon a complaint filed by the respondent, Duman Singh (hereinafter called " the complainant"). The accused and his family members had been involved in a long-standing dispute over a certain piece of land. Being apprehensive of a quarrel, the local police had initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the F.I.R., the complainant alleges that he was led to believe that the accused and his family members had, on 28.5.1993, violated the Tehsildar s order not to interfere with the land and had ploughed the land and sown a paddy crop. To verify whether this was true, the complainant and a few others went to the village of the accused. He alleges that after having confirmed the news, he and five others were returning in their vehicles when they came upon the accused, his three brothers and his father, who were armed and were standing near thevillage chowk. The complainant and his party stopped their vehicles and, one member of the complainant s party, who was armed with a Dang, went upto the accused s party to enquire why they had violated the Tehsildar s order. According to the complainant, the accused s brother reacted by attacking that person, whereupon an altercation ensued between both sides. The members of both parties were armed with Dangs, Sotis and rifles. The Skirmish resulted in the death of some of the persons present. (The F.I.R.records the death of two members of the complainant s party while the impugned judgment states that one member of the accused s party was also killed).

4. Two members of the accused s party, Tara Singh and Chamkaur Singh, sought bail. On 14.9.1993, the former was enlarged on bail while the latter did not press his application. Chamkaur Singh, however, did file applications for bail on two subsequent occasions but in vain. Thereafter, the accused filed an application for bail which was heard on 11.10.1994 and the following order was passed by V.K. Bali, J. :

"There are two cross versions and on both sides one person had died. As to which of the party i.e. accused of this case or the accused of the case in which FIR has been lodged by the accused, is/are aggressor, is a moot point. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, I deem it a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the CJM, Ludhiana."

The accused was, therefore, released on bail. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order, the complainant made a representation to the Chief Minister of Punjab stating that the accused had issued threats to him, a copy of which was sent to the Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. This letter was treated as a petition for cancellation of bail and was heard by V.K. Bail, J., the learned Judge who had, in the first place, granted bail to the accused.

5. In the impugned judgment, the learned Judge states that while seeking bail, the accused had concealed material facts from the Court in that he had only relied on the fact that Chamkaur Singh had not pressed his application for bail on 14.9.1993, without mentioning that Chamkaur Singh s applications for bail were later rejected on two occasions. Moreover, the learned Judge stated that while granting bail, he had been under the impression that there were two cross versions and both parties had been challaned by the police whereas, in fact, only one challan, against the accused party, had been issued. For these reasons, the learned Judge saw it fit to cancel the bail granted to the accused.

6. The accused preferred an appeal before this