SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(P&H) 809

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Sandeep Goyal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6149-M of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 12, 1997

The court can cancel bail granted by a lower court if it was granted on irrelevant considerations.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 439(2) - CANCELLATION OF BAIL - COURT'S DISCRETION - CONSIDERATIONS - STRONG AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES - IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS - FIREARM INJURY - REPETITION OF SHOTS - MOTIVE - TENDENCY TO FABRICATE INJURIES - NATURE OF INJURIES - ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL AFTER DELAY - PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD - THREATS TO WITNESSES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, the injured and the complainant, filed a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of firing a gun at the injured, causing a firearm injury. The respondent claimed to have suffered injuries himself and was admitted to a hospital after a delay. The petitioners alleged that the respondent manipulated his admission and injuries to avoid arrest and that he threatened the petitioners and witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled as it was granted on irrelevant considerations. The court noted that the respondent had fired a gun at the injured, causing a firearm injury, and that there was a motive for the crime. The court also considered the respondent's tendency to fabricate injuries, the nature of his injuries, his admission to the hospital after a delay, his prior criminal record, and his threats to witnesses as strong and compelling circumstances warranting the cancellation of bail.

Issues: 1. Whether the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled. 2. Whether the considerations for granting bail are the same as those for cancelling bail. 3. Whether the court can cancel bail granted by a lower court if it was granted on irrelevant considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled as it was granted on irrelevant considerations. 2. The court noted that the considerations for granting bail are different from those for cancelling bail. 3. The court held that it can cancel bail granted by a lower court if it was granted on irrelevant considerations.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent.

Judgment

1. Sarvshri Sandeep Goyal (informant) and Dildar Singh (injured) have filed the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No. 2 Bikramjit Singh alias Biki by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 5th March, 1997 in case F.I.R. No. 19, dated 17th February, 1997 under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Gobindgarh.

2. First of all I would like to refer to the allegations of the F.I.R. which was lodged at the instance of Sandeep Goyal, petitioner No. 1, who stated that he was proprietor of Gulmohar Hotel. Last evening i.e. 16-2-1997, he along with Rajinder Singh Banti and Dildar Singh, residents of Guru Ki Nagari, Mandi Gobindgarh, had participated in the marriage ceremony of the son of Raj Kumar Channi, resident of Gobindgarh in Vassehra Ground. At about 11.45 p.m. he along with Rajinder Singh and Dildar Singh after urinating outside were entering the marriage camp (Pandal) and were just near entrance of the Pandal, when respondent No.2 Bikramjit Singh alias Biki of Patiala Mill, Mandi Gobindgarh, came there who pulled his hand on the shoulder of Dildar Singh and exhorted him that the latter had gone to the Police Station, Sirhind against the former and, therefore, he would be taught a lesson on that day. It is alleged by the complainant that within the view of Shri Rajinder Singh, the accused took out a pistol from the right pocket of his pant and fired a shot upon Dildar Singh, hitting on his left thigh, due to which said Dildar Singh fell on the ground. The accused again fired a shot aiming at Dildar Singh, but it did not hit him. The Complainant overpowered the accused, who fired a third shot, aiming at the complainant, and this shot also missed. Many people gathered there on hearing the noise of firing.Upon this Biki ran away from the spot along with his pistol. The complainant and Rajinder Singh took Dildar Singh in an injured condition in a car to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh for treatment. It is finally alleged in the F.I.R. that respondent No. 2 had fired the shot from his pistol at Dildar Singh with an intention to murder him. This statement was recorded by S. I. Harbhajan Singh and case F.I.R. No. 19, dated 17th February, 1997 under Section 307, I.P.C., was registered at Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh.

3. Respondent No. 2 Bikramjit Singh made an application on 25th February, 1997 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, who vide order dated 5th March, 1997 allowed the bail application, and the operative portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge can be incorporated as follows :-

"7. It was a case of sudden fight during the midnight occurred at 11.45 p.m. when the complainant and the accused-applicant were present in the marriage party. No case has been registered against the complainant regarding the injuries given to the applicant-accused Bikramjeet Singh. As per the medical evidence available on the file the applicant/accused Bikramjeet Singh is still admitted in Rajindra Hospital for the injuries he received whereas the injured Dildar Singh had already been discharged from the Hospital.8. Taking into consideration the number of the injuries existing on the person of the applicant and the fact that he is still in the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and is under treatment and the fact that the injury attributed to the present applicant is on the non-vital part of the injured Dildar Singh and the injured has since been discharged from the hospital and it is difficult and rather it would be premature to say who out of the two parties is aggressor one, and without touching the merits of the case the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate, Amloh.Copy of the order be sent

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top