1. Respondents who were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under section 307/34 and 341 RFC were firstly released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 4.1.1988 and the said order was made absolute by the court below on 7.1.1988. The State has sought the cancellation of bail of the respondents on various grounds detailed in the petition wherein it is alleged that after the grant of anticipatory bail the respondents have been attempting to tamper with the prosecution evidence for which they have given threats to the witnesses. It was submitted that Kuldip Kumar Zutshi was seriously injured by the respondents and others who received multiple injuries including head injuries and was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences where he was treated surgically also.

2. During the course of the arguments and inspection of the original order passed in the bail matter which was subsequently made absolute. This court prima facie found that the court below had not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why the order granting them bail be not set aside in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this court. In response to this notice the respondents appeared through their counsel and besides adopting the objections already filed have made submissions to justify the order of bail granted in their favour.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the record and written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents.

3. The record of the court below shows that an application under section 497-A Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail was moved before the Ilnd. Addl. Sessions Judge on 4th Jan. 1988 and a copy of the application was handed over to the A.P.P. for report of the police to be produced by 3 P.M. The case was again taken up at 3. P.M. when petitioner s friend Kaka and one Fazal Ahmed constable are alleged to have come back in the court and reported that some official of Police Post Sarwal had written the report about the occurrence but the Dy. S. P. City declined to send the report saying that the same would be sent later on. A.P.P. sought time to file objections but the learned court below directed the respondents to be released on interim bail to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- with sureties and appear before the Investigating Officer at 5 P.M. with direction that the case be put up for further proceedings next day. On 5-1-1988 the A.P.P. produced the police report wherein it was mentioned that the respondent/accused did not present themselves before the investigating agency as directed by the court. The accused are alleged to have produced some receipts that they remained with the Investigating Officer till 9 P.M. The A.P.P. was thereafter directed to produce the case diaries and the bail was extended till 7.1.1988. As the Investigating Officer allegedly did not appear in the court on the date fixed, the court below made the bail absolute vide its order dated 7.1.1988.

4. From the record of the court below it appears that a detailed report about the occurrence had been submitted by the Police wherein it was specifically mentioned that the injured Kuldip Kumar Zutshi had received a head injury whose condition was serious and was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences. It was further mentioned that the accused were prima facie guilty of the offences punishable under section 307/34 and 341 R.P.C. The learned court below without examining the report which was attached with his file passed the orders directing the release of the respondents in anticipation of their arrest.

5. Mr. T. S. Thakur the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that this court could not exercise its revisional powers as according to him the order of granting the bail was an interlocutory order which could not be revised in view of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document