TEJ RAM Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved by the complainant Tej Ram under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of Suresh Kumar respondent accused (respondent for short) granted by Sh. G.S. Dhaka, ASJ, Delhi vide order dated 11.3.91 in Sessions Case FIR No. 154/90 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code pertaining to PS Keshav Puram, Delhi. Another application Cr. M. 782/91 has been moved in this petition giving some additional grounds for cancellation of bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that at 9.00 P.M. on 18.7.90 respondent along with his two companions Sanjiv Kumar and Shyam Sunder stabbed Rakesh Kumar son of the petitioner which resulted in his death. It is alleged to be a brutal and sensational murder wherein ten stab injuries were given. Petitioner lodged FIR at PS Keshav Puram whereupon the respondent and his companions were arrested. Sanjiv Kumar filed Criminal Misc. (M)49/91 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.2.91 by this Court. It is alleged that this fact was also brought to the notice of the learned ASJ. The bail is alleged to have been granted to respondent without any valid ground. He was named in the FIR. There are three eye witnesses of the occurrence also. The knife was also recovered. But the learned ASJ seems to have been misled in believing that there was no injury on the front portion of the body of the deceased whereas the injury No. 5 in the postmortem report is shown near the nipple on the cheat of the deceased. It is further stated that the learned ASJ has given great importance to the anonymous message giving information to the police about the occurrence without appreciating that more than often false message are given by the kith and kin of the accused in order to put investigation on wrong track. Learned ASJ also seems to have laid great stress on the point that the petitioner did not disclose the names of the accused to the doctor or that the names of the accused were not written in the column meant for this purpose in the FIR and so on.

(3.) In the additional grounds, it is stated that the order was obtained by mis-representing that the first bail application of the respondent was dismissed during investigation and the second bail application, therefore, merited consideration after filing the challan. This was stated to be wrong.