The criteria for cancellation of bail are different from those for refusal of bail, and a perfect balance between individual liberty and the interest of society must be maintained in the grant or refusal of bail.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

1. One Mohan Singh Salathia is said to have committed suicide by hanging himself to death on 14.09.2014. After inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. Police Station Domana registered offence under section 306 RPC as FIR No. 366/14 against respondent- 2 to 4 and took up the investigation. All the respondents were arrested on 04.10.2014. On the same day, however, application for bail on their behalf was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Registrar), Jammu and the learned Magistrate ordered their release on interim bail. State filed objections to the application and also provided detailed report about the incident to the Magistrate and the Magistrate vide order passed on 20.10.2014 confirmed the interim bail with a direction that respondents shall not tamper/hamper the investigation or try to win over prosecution witnesses and shall assist the I.O. in the investigation.

2. Petitioner, who claims to be the father of the deceased, by the medium of this petition invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. and revisional jurisdiction under section 439 to seek quashing of the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 20.10.2014 (supra).

3. Heard. I have perused the record.

4. Respondent No. 2/Anita Rani is wife of the deceased. Respondent No. 4/Rajesh Singh is brother of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3/Sushma Devi is the wife of respondent No. 4. Case set out in the FIR is that commission of suicide by the deceased was abetted by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as they had caused harassment to the deceased as much as to compel him to end his life. It is stated in the FIR that the marriage between the deceased and respondent No. 2 had taken place 18 years back. Their relations got strained due to no birth of a child to them. Respondents at one point of time in a preplanned manner quarreled with the deceased and respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 328/214 under sections 342/323/506 RPC against the deceased. At another time respondent No. 3, who is a Judicial Employee, by exercising her influence got the deceased summoned by Women Cell Police where respondent No. 3 quarreled with him and Women Cell Police caused lot of harassment to him. The respondents once again got a complaint against the deceased referred to the Police in terms of section 202 Cr.P.C. Fed up of the harassment being meted to him by the respondents, deceased eventually committed the suicide.

5. Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Advocate, opposing the impugned order, submitted that granting bail immediately after arrest for commission of heinous offence under section 306 RPC was misuse of process of Court and improper exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate. The order was passed in hot haste with predetermined mind. Grant of bail ignoring gravity of the offence is against general public interest. Mr. Salathia, on the strength of averments made in the petition, submitted also that respondent No. 3, who is a Judicial Employee, is influencing and hampering the investigation.

6. Per contra, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, supported the order. He submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction calling for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Likewise, no case for quashing the order is made out inasmuch as quashing of the order would mean cancelling the bail without any ground for cancellation. Mr. Sawhney relied upon Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349.

7. It is now well settled by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, in particular, landmark judgment in Bajan Lal's case AIR 1992 SC 604, that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. (section 561-A State Code) though very vast should be exercised carefully and sparingly in exceptional circumstances to give effect to any order under the code or to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure