Bail should not be granted mechanically; serious allegations against the accused warrant careful judicial consideration, especially in heinous crimes.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for the cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) by learned Sessions Judge (Bilaspur) (learned Trial Court) in Bail Application No.115/22 of 2024 on 28.08.2024. It has been asserted that the petitioner is the witness/injured and son of the deceased in FIR No.51/2022. The respondent No.2/accused inflicted blows on the informant’s and the petitioner’s head. The informant and her family members sustained injuries. The injured Desh Raj was taken to PGIMER, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries. The respondent No.2-accused filed a bail application before learned Sessions Judge Bilaspur, which was allowed by learned Sessions Judge on 28.08.2024. Learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the status report and relied upon the statement of Gurmail Singh. He failed to consider the evidence of the injured and other eyewitnesses. The respondent No.2/accused had taken the axe from Puneet Kumar and caused injuries to the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge granted bail in a heinous and grave crime of murder. The respondent No.2/accused had filed a bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No. 3160 of 2023, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.01.2024. There was no change in the circumstance, and learned Sessions Judge erred in granting the bail; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and that respondent No.2/accused be taken into custody after cancelling his bail.

2. The police filed a status report asserting that informant Giano Devi made a report to the police that she had a dispute over the land with Kunti Devi. Many quarrels had taken place between them. Kunti Devi came to the informant’s land on 04.02.2022 and threatened to kill her. Puneet also came to the spot and inflicted injuries on the head of Deshraj with an Axe. The petitioner inflicted a blow on the informant’s head and also inflicted a blow with Axe on the head of Satish. The informant and her family members sustained injuries. Gurmail and Amar Nath came to the spot and rescued the informant. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. As per Medico Legal Certificate, Giano Devi and Satish Kumar had sustained injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. Deshraj was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, for his treatment. He succumbed to his injuries. Challan was prepared and presented before the competent Court. As per the post-mortem report, the death was caused by craniocerebral damage and laceration of the right lung consequent upon blunt impact over the head and chest, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution has cited 43 witnesses, out of whom 17 have been examined. The matter has been listed on 14.01.2025 and 17.01.2025.

3. I have heard Mr H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused.

4. Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that learned Sessions Judge erred in granting bail to the respondent/accused No.2. He relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh versus State, 1978 (118) SCC (1), Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu (2022) 9 SCC 321 and Ajwar VS. Waseem and anr, 2024:INSC:438 in support of his submission.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, submitted that learned Sessions Judge erred in granting the bail and not considering the status report filed by the prosecution. He also prayed that the present petition be allowed and the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused be cancelled.

6. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had granted the bail due to the change in circumstances and after noticing the statements of the witnesses who were examined by the Court; there is no infir