Cancellation of bail under S. 437(5), Cr. P. C. is justified when the offence is of a grave nature, there is a likelihood of the accused not being available for trial, and there is a likelihood of tampering with witnesses.

( 1 ) CRI. Misc. Cases Nos. 549/88 and 560/88 are bail petitions respectively filed by Kadma alias Kadam Singh and Megha alias Megh Singh in connection with the same offence and have been taken up for analogous hearing. This order would dispose of all the three bail petitions.

( 2 ) SARVASHRI D. R. Sharma, A. K. Palua and N. M. Haswani, Advocates for the respective petitioners. in the three bail petitions have been heard as also Shri P. D. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Case Diary perused.

( 3 ) BAIL is not to be refused as a punitive measure, follows as a necessary corollary from the golden rule-thread which runs throughout the web of criminal jurisprudence that the law presumes an accused to be innocent till guilt has been proved. Yet bail is a matter of procedural privileges at the most, and not an accrued right, at least until it is granted, said Digby, J. in Sitao Jholia Dhimar v. Emperor. AIR 1943 Nagpur 36. 'bail, not Jail' has become slogan in bail petitions picked up from the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447 but it is often forgotten that the slogan is preceded by qualifying words that it was nothing but the "basic rule tersely put". Their Lordships proceeded to add -"it is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with the Court when considering the question of jail, so also the heinousness of the crime"their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 summed up the various considerations while dealing with the application for bait as - Nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with the larger interest of the public for the State and similar other considerations which arise when a Court is asked for bail in a non-bailable offence (emphasis supplied ). The principles were reiterated and once again Health with exhaustively and summed up precisely by the Apex Court in Babu Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1978 SC 527. It was stated that refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice to the individual involved and society affected. Quoting an English decision, their Lordships said "it is very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail would appear to take the trial and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable, if convicted". Their Lordships added - "it is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. "

( 4 ) HAVING refreshed the principles, a brief resume of the facts of the case emerging from the case diary. A young innocent boy Dipak, aged 10 years, returning in the company of even aged children from the school on 17-3-1988 in the township of Morar was allured away and kidnapped. His grandfather lodged a first information report, whereupon initially, an offence under S. 363, IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship) only was registered and investigation started. Subsequently, certain letters demanding a ransom and containing a threat that the kidnapped would be done away with if the amount demanded was not paid, were recovered from the unfortunate grand-father, whereupon the offence was converted into one under S. 365, IPC and then again into Ss. 364, 387 and 120-B, IPC. On 7-4-1988 at 2. 30 p. m. Dipak was recovered from the residential house of the accused Kalyan Singh