JUDGMENT

Thomas, CJ - This order will govern both the applications, (Criminal Revision No. 81 of 1939 filed on behalf of the Crown for cancellation of the bail granted to Rani Abhairaj Kunwar hereafter called Raj Mata and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 1939 filed on behalf of Kunwar Shyama Kumar Singh hereafter called Kunwar Sahib). Har Narain, Punnu Khan and Afaq Ahmad are being prosecuted under Section 307, I.P.C., for attempting to murder Rani Subhadra Devi, the complainant. It appears that the relations between the complainant and her husband Kunwar Sahib are strained and for the last 6 or 7 years she has been living separately from him at Lucknow in mohalla Model Houses. Kunwar Sahib gives her an allowance of Rs. 9000 a year. The mother of the complainant is dead and her father is the Raja of Kashipur, who resides at his estate. Kunwar Sahib and the Raj Mata were arrested on the 15th August 1939, and their application for bail was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the same date. They applied for bail to the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow, who granted bail to the Raj Mata, but rejected the application of Kunwar Sahib. The Crown has applied for cancellation of the bail granted to the Raj Mata, and Kunwar Sahib has applied for granting bail to him.

2. At the very outset I wish to make it clear that I express no opinion on the merits of the case though a good deal of evidence was read out to me by both sides. In my opinion in such applications no Court should express any opinion on evidence. The main points for consideration in the application for bail are: (1) whether there is any likelihood of the accused absconding; (2) whether there is any likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence of threatening the complainant. The social position or status of an accused person in my opinion should never be taken into consideration when granting or rejecting an application for bail. The alleged offence was committed on 19th January 1939. Har Narain, Punnu Khan and Afaq Ahmad were arrested on 12th February 1939, but it appears that Afaq Ahmad was released on the following day. Har Narain on 24th February 1939, made a statement under Section 164, Criminal P.C., to Mr. Kirmani, a First Class Magistrate. Mr. Kirmani has been examined as a witness for the prosecution as P.W. 55, and has stated as follows:

I had gone to jail to record the reported confession of Har Narain on 24th February 1939. He refused to make a confession and said he knew nothing about the case.

3. I am informed by the Prosecuting Inspector, who is present in Court, that on 17th June 1939, the accused Har Narain who was in jail presented an application through a counsel to the Deputy Commissioner that he wanted to make a statement. The accused on the same date was produced before Mr. Qadri, a First Class Magistrate, and made a lengthy statement implicating himself and some other persons. On his statement Afaq Ahmad was re-arrested on 19th June 1939. The inquiry in the case started on 1st July 1939, and I am informed that so far 73 witnesses have been examined and a few formal witnesses remain to be examined. These witnesses are the complainant, her father, brother and a few others. The learned Government Advocate has conceded that all the important witnesses in the case have been examined. Their examination closed on or about 9th August 1939, that is before Kunwar Sahib and the Raj Mata were arrested. It appears that the Raj Mata and Kunwar Sahib were not arrested under orders of the Magistrate who is making inquiry in the case, but were arrested by the police under orders from their superior officers.

4. The learned Sessions Judge who released the Raj Mata on bail was of opinion that the lady would not tamper with the evidence, that she was a pardanashin lady, and that there was no danger of her absconding. The learned Government Advocate in support of the application for cancellation of. bail has contended that the lady is not a pardanash