Anticipatory Bail--On finding that Court was not inclined to extend the concession of bail to petitioner, prayer to withdraw the case was made--Prayer declined--Bail petition dismissed in view of evidence on record.

Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This is second attempt on the part of the petitioner to seek bail for an offence registered against him along with his coaccused under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2. No doubt, the first bail application filed by the petitioner was not dismissed on merit but was got dismissed as withdrawn. The order ofcourse is to this effect, but otherwise counsel for one of the co-accused of the petitioner, with which the bail application of the petitioner was earlier heard and listed before this court, was heard for quite some time and only thereafter the petitioner and his co-accused had withdrawn the application for bail. The petitioner has now again taken courage to file this second bail application by pleading some change in circumstances, where there is hardly any such change noticed or seen.

2A. A perusal of the petition revealed that before making the present approach, the petitioner had filed a petition before Sessions Judge and has filed this petition after getting his petition for bail before Sessions Judge dismissed as withdrawn on 22.3.2012. It is noticed that after filing the second application before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner withdrew the same on 24.7.2012. It could be noticed from this order that other co-accused of the petitioner had also filed a fresh application for bail before the Sessions Judge. Once the bail petitions were filed before this court and the same were got dismissed as withdrawn by all the accused in this case, it was considered a bit inappropriate on the part of the petitioner and his coaccused to make yet another attempt for getting bail before the Court of Sessions. The Court, therefore, considered it appropriate to summon the case file, which has now been received.

3. The petitioner otherwise has referred to the evidence recorded in this case and in this regard made reference to a court question, which is reproduced in the petition. I have perused the evidence and find that there is an eye-witness account, which is available on record. There is other link evidence or connecting evidence worth of which is to be appreciated by the trial court while finally deciding the case. This case was transferred by this court for trial from Jalandhar to Gurdaspur as obviously the plea raised was that the fair trial may suffer if the trial continues at Jalandhar. Only in order to ensure fair trial that the venue of the trial was shifted to Gurdaspur, so that accused persons are not able to influence the witnesses.

4. It may not be out of place to notice here that one of the witness has not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has been permitted to question this witness, which are of the nature of cross-examination. It is duty and responsibility of the Court to ensure that trial in such serious offences is held in fair manner that neither the prosecution nor the persons facing the trial are made to suffer any disadvantage while prosecuting and defending the case respectively. It is equally the responsibility of this court to ensure that trial is held in a fair manner. Where attempt is seen to win over the witnesses by making them turn hostile to the prosecution, then the Court has to remain alert and on the guard, so that any undue influence over the course of trial is checked and nipped in the bud at appropriate stage only. For this purpose, this court has not to wait for trial to end and then intervene.

5. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also elaborated this responsibility of the courts and that of this court. If it is found that the fair trial is the casualty, then this court is not to hesitate to effectively interfere and ensure that all the parties get fair trial.

6. It is important to take note of some very telling observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard as made in the case of R.K. Anand Vs. Delhi High Court, [2009(4) Law Herald (SC) 2785] : 2009(8) SCC 106, which is the after effect of