JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J. – This is a petition filed by the petition under Article 22/of the Constitution of India read with Section 439 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore referred to as Code) and in has been prayed by Sheri S.N. Kapur, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahadara, a Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention be ordered to be released on bail in terms of earlier bail order.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested under Section 307/34, I.P.C. 27/54/59 Arms and Section 5 of TADA Pertaining to F.I.R. No. 410/92 P.S. Gokulpur therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahdara vide order dated 5th November, 1992 granted bail that the petitioner would not visit the locality of Mangat Ram (Respondent No.2) who was the complainant in the said F.I.R. without prior permission of the Court.

3. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara seeking permission of the Court to visit Village Sabhapur where respondent No. 2 is residing, to attend the last rites of his deceased real uncle on 26th August, 1993 and 29th August, 1993 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.8.1993 allowed the petitioner to visit village Sabhapur from 26th August, 1993 to 29th August, 1993 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall inform the police station concerned.

4. Meanwhile Mangat Ram, respondent No. 2 herein filed an application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara on 26.8.1993 and in this application it was stated that the petitioner had got the permission from the court visit village Sabhapur by stating false facts that deceased Baljeet S/o Shri Raghbir was his real under whereas in fact the said Baljeet was not his real uncle. Il was also stated in this application that the petitioner was involved in really criminal cases and he was in the habit of always giving threats to kill the applicant and the applicant had also lodged reports against him on 10.11.1992 and 3.12.1992. It was prayed in this application that order dated 23.8.1993 granting permission to the petitioner be recalled.

5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara vide order dated 1.11.1993 cancelled the bail of the petitioner and order that the petitioner be taken into custody. In this order ill has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that deceased Baljeet was neither real uncle nor brother, first cousin, second cousin or third cousin whereas the accused (petitioner) had alleged in his application that the deceased Baljeet was his real uncle and this certainly amounts to misleading the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further observed that vide DD entry No. 16 dated 29.8.1993. petitioner alongwith some other person visited Village Sabhapur in a blue Maruit Car DL5 SC 7142 at about 4.30 P.M. and thereafter petitioner’s brother Dhani Ram, Hukam Chand at Sat Prakash said that one of their members had already been killed and one more person would be killed. It has then been observed that the petitioner is involved in the murder of Dev Karan brother of mangal Ram, Compliment taking into consideration the aforesaid and fact the learned Additional Sessions judge cancelled the bail of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the application seeking permission to visit Subhapur from 26.8.1993 to 29.8.1993, due to bonafide mistake in the office of the counsel for the opetitioner in relation and in this connection he drew my attention to the pedigree which is at page 15 of the paper book. He further submitted that in any case due to this mistake, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner to visit village Sabhapur, but should not have cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner. He also