The privilege of bail cannot be taken away merely on changed circumstances or submission of charge sheet, and cancellation of bail should be based on specific grounds such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, or threat to witnesses.

Akhilesh Chandra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of ORDER :dated 28th February, 2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, cancelling the privilege of bail granted to the petitioner in Sakra P.S. Case no. 164 of 2003 vide B.P. No. 1192 of 2003 on 29th October, 2003.

3. The relevant facts in this case is that Sakra P.S. Case no. 164 of 2003 was instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against three persons including the petitioner. His prayer for bail was considered by the learned Vacation Judge (Sessions Judge) and considering the submission of charge sheet against the petitioner and materials collected till then, the petitioner was granted the privilege of bail. The last operative portion of the bail ORDER :reads as such:

“It appears on a perusal of the case diary that except mere suspicion of the informant, there is no evidence at all against the petitioner to connect him with the aforesaid disappearance of the son of the informant. The investigation against the petitioner has concluded and he has been charge sheeted. So, no further evidence is expected to be collected on the case diary against the petitioner. So, considering these facts, I feel it proper to admit the petitioner to bail. Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below.”

4. Thereafter, prayer for bail on behalf of co-named accused Jagarnath Prasad was made. At the time of hearing of such prayer same Judge, finding some direct materials as an outcome of subsequent investigation pending against the petitioner there, while rejecting the prayer made on behalf of co-named accused Jagarnath Prasad, noticed that same materials are equally applicable in case of the present petitioner against whom earlier not only charge sheet was submitted, but on consideration of materials, at the relevant time he was enlarged on bail. Consequently, notice to show cause was issued against the petitioner as to why not the privilege granted to him may be cancelled. In response, petitioner appeared, filed show cause and by detailed ORDER :court below cancelled the privilege granted to the petitioner giving rise to instant case.

5. It would be relevant to re-produce paragraphs 25 and 26 of the impugned ORDER :which reads as such:

“I have already mentioned the facts and evidences collected on the case diary against accused Rajdeo Prasad after his release on bail in paragraph no. 4 hereinbefore. On similar facts and evidences this court subsequently rejected the prayer for bail of co-accused Jagarnath Prasad. He moved for bail before the Hon’ble court on the ground that similarly situated co-accused Rajdeo Prasad had been granted bail by this court. The Hon’ble court rejected his prayer for bail stating therein that Rajdeo Prasad was granted bail at a stage when the victim was not recovered, but subsequently he was recovered and his statement was also recorded in the court in which he claimed that Rajdeo Prasad, Jagarnath Prasad and two others had kidnapped and kept him confined. The Hon’ble court while refusing bail to co-accused Jagarnath Prasad had also taken notice of the fact that this court had issued notice to Rajdeo Prasad for the cancellation of his bail.

So, the position is that co-accused Jagarnath Prasad is lodged in jail custody for that last about one year or more and accused Rajdeo Prasad against whom there are the same evidences on the case diary and who is main accused is enjoying the privilege of bail simply due to late collection of evidences on the case diary by the Investigating Officer and submission of charge sheet against Rajdeo Prasad without actually concluding the investigatio