The court emphasized the need to balance the necessity of not allowing the course of justice to be deflected with that of allowing the liberty to the accused until found guilty, and highlighted that the power to cancel bail should be exercised with care and circumspection.

1. - This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.RC. has been filed on behalf of complainant Bhanwar Lal against the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar for cancellation of bail being No. 416/2001 arising out of FIR No. 68/2001, RS. Ramgarh Sethan District Sikar, whereby application for cancellation of bail of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has been disallowed.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this application are that the petitioner lodged an FIR No. 68/2001 at RS. Ramgarh Sethan with the allegations that his father Bhagwana Ram Godara died due to the injuries inflicted by the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 and their other family members. A case for the offence under section 302/34 IPC was registered and the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 were arrested during the course of investigating. Birbal Ram was released on bail vide order dated 9.8 2001 on the ground that the doctor did not find the injuries sustained by Bhagwana Ram Godara as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and non-petitioner No. 2 Kesar Deo was released on ball vide order dated 13.8.2001 on the ground that his case was not distinguishable from the case of co-accused Birbal Ram. The petitioner sought cancellation of their bail on two grounds. The first ground agitated on his behalf was that the non-petitioners had sought bail by concealing factual facts from the court. The second ground which was set up for cancellation of bail was that they had misused the liberty of bail granted to them by threatening the complainant and his other family members as also the witnesses Shethana Ram, Girdhari, Sndraj Singh and Jai Prakash to kill them if they deposed against them.

3. The learned Sessions Judge found both these grounds baseless and untenable giving cogent reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Hence, the petitioner has moved this application for cancellation of bail granted .to them re-agitating the grounds before this court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 and the learned PR on behalf of the State.

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 have misused the liberty of bail granted to them. They are continuously threatening and terrorising the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

6. The learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that all these reports have been lodged in order to build up a case for cancellation of bail. He has also pointed out that statements of the main witnesses have already been recorded and now there is absolutely no reason for the non-petitioners to threatens complainant and the witnesses. He has urged that the grounds on which the order for cancellation of bail is sought are non-existent and have been rightly so held by the learned court below. He has urged that this application may be rejected.

7. The learned RR has not addressed any argument in this matter and has simply submitted that the matter may be decided by the court.

8. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at bar and have also perused the impugned order and other materials placed before me.

9. Section 439(2) Cr.RC. expressly empowers the Court of Sessions and the High Court to cancel the bail granted by it under sub-section (1) of Section 439 or Section 438 Cr.RC. to an accused if he is found to interfere with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses .But the court has to remember that this power to take into custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail is to be exercised with care and circumspection. The court has to strike a balance between the necessity of not allowing the course of justice to be deflected and that of allowing the liberty to the accused until he is found guilty. The liberty once granted to an accused cannot be curtailed