Back
1975 Supreme(P&H) 30
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Pritam Singh Pattar, J.
Ranjit Singh
Versus
Nand Lal
Decided On : FEBRUARY 28, 1975
The court has the power to cancel bail if it finds that the same was granted by the Court of Session on erroneous grounds.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 439(2) - CANCELLATION OF BAIL - COURT'S POWER TO CANCEL BAIL - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - NATURE OF OFFENCE - SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE - EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED - LIKELIHOOD OF TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES - PUBLIC INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was arrested and charged with murder. He was granted bail by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the prosecution had not filed the challan within the time directed by the court. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased, filed an application for cancellation of bail, contending that the accused was likely to influence and put pressure on the three eye-witnesses, who were police constables.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sessions Judge did not exercise his discretion judicially in granting bail to the accused. The court considered the nature of the offence, the evidence against the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with the witnesses. The court found that the accused was likely to win over the three official witnesses, who were police constables, and that this would prejudice the fair trial of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sessions Judge erred in granting bail to the accused in a murder case without considering the merits of the case? 2. Whether the accused was likely to influence and put pressure on the three eye-witnesses, who were police constables?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Sessions Judge did not exercise his discretion judicially in granting bail to the accused. The court considered the nature of the offence, the evidence against the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with the witnesses. The court found that the accused was likely to win over the three official witnesses, who were police constables, and that this would prejudice the fair trial of the case. 2. The court held that the accused was likely to influence and put pressure on the three eye-witnesses, who were police constables. The court considered the fact that the accused was a former captain of the Indian Army and at the time of arrest was employed in the delegation in India of a French Company. The court also considered the fact that the accused had been granted bail in a previous case involving conspiracy and passing on official secrets to a foreign agency.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted to the accused. The court directed that the accused be arrested and committed to custody.
Pritam Singh Pattar, J.
1. This is an application made under Sec.439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent Nand Lal, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, vide order dated 20th December.1974.
2. The facts of this case are that a case under Sec.302, Indian Penal Code, was registered against Nand Lal, A. S. I. , respondent at Police Station, Boha, at 5-30 P. M. on 14th November.1974, on the report lodged by Ranjit Singh son of Hardit Singh, resident of Bam Nagar Bhathal. According to him, he and his two brothers Gulab Singh and Roop Singh were irrigating the land from the tubewell of Bachan Singh on the night between 12th and 13th of November, 1974, when at about 2 A. M. , A. S. I. Nand Lal of Police Station, Boha and three constables came there and they asked them their names. When Gulab Singh told his name, then Shri Nand Lal, A. S. I. , stated that he was the person wanted in the case. On hearing this, Gulab Singh ran away out of fear. Nand Lal, A. S. I. fired a shot with his pistol which hit Gulab Singh on the back and he fell down. Nand Lal fired two more shots. Both Ranjit Singh and Roop Singh requested the respondent not to kill Gulab Singh. Nand Lal and the three constables then went to the place where Gulab Singh was lying injured and on seeing the blood oozing out, they ran away. Gulab Singh was placed on a cot and was removed to the hospital at Budhlada. From there on the advice of the doctor, Gulab Singh was taken to Bhatinda Hospital as his condition was serious. However, Gulab Singh died in the way. A case under Sec.302, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the respondent and he was arrested in that case.
3. Nand Lal A. S. I. made an application in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, for bail stating that the facts mentioned in the prosecution story were false and that the correct facts were that on 12th November, 1,974, at about 11-30 P. M. , secret information was received by Nand Lal, A. S. I. respondent, who was then posted at Police Station, Boha, District Bhatinda, that Gulab Singh, Ajaib Singh and Gurmail Singh were distilling illicit liquor by working a still in the area of village Ram Nagar Bhathal, The Assistant Sub-Inspector along with Naranjan Singh, Iqbal Singh and Sohan Singh constables went in a jeep driven by one Chhinder Singh. On reaching there, they found that in the cotton field, the said Gulab Singh, Ajaib Singh and Gurmail Singh were working a still and were distilling illicit liquor. Gulab Singh armed with a gandasa was feeding the fire, Ajaib Singh was changing the water and Gurmail Singh armed with a gandasa was watching the working of the still. The police party wanted to arrest these three persons but they were alleged to have attempted to attack the police party. The Assistant Sub-Inspector was alleged to have fired a shot in the air with his pistol but all those persons ran away after throwing their gandasas. Thereafter, the working still was dismantled and its component parts were taken into possession. A case under the Punjab Excise Act and under Sec.307. Indian Penal Code, was registered against Gulab Singh, Ajaib Singh and Gurmail Singh. His application for bail was dismissed on 2-12-1974 by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. However, he directed the Public Prosecutor to see that the chalan was presented in Court in a weeks time. The chalan was not presented within that period and the accused made another application on 11th December.1974. in the Court of the Sessions Judge, who allowed that application on 20th December, 1974, and directed that the respondent be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25.000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Duty Magistrate,
4. Thereafter, the present application for cancellation of bail was made by Ranjit Singh, brother of the deceased, wherein it was simply mentioned that in case the accused remained on
