ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Normally bail when granted is not to be cancelled unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The grounds for cancellation of bail are; interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to the accused. Therefore the consideration for granting the bail are different than the consideration which are to be weighed in mind at the time of considering the application for cancellation of bail. There are five cases where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and re-committed to the Jail : (1) Where on bail he committed the very same offence for which he was being tried or has been convicted; (2) if he hampers the investigation; (3) if he hampers with the evidence; (4) if he runs away to a foreign country, or gone underground or beyond the control of his sureties and finally (5) if he commits acts of violence in revenge. The Court before cancelling the bail has to keep in mind that there is an overwholming circumstance which has necessitated the re-arrest of the person.

(2.) Therefore, keeping in mind the above principles of law what we have to see in the present case is whether there is any cogent and overwhelming circumstance, necessitating the cancellation of bail which was granted to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order of 11.2.92.

(3.) In nutshell the case pertains to a triple murder committeed at the house of complainant on 9.6.90. The complainant and his wife had gone to their offices leaving behind their parents namely; father Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta and mother Smt. Kamlawati alongwith their four years old son at their house. When they returned home they found the main gate open and the wooden gate inside the iron gate was found locked from the outside. Complainants thought that the parents with their child may have gone out to the Park. But after waiting for about 2 hours when nobody turned up they broke open the lock with the help of neighbour, Sh. Chandra and when they entered the flat they discovered the bodies of the deceased parents and their child. Matter was reported to the police and during investigation Lakhander Mehto made a statement to the police that when he was carrying badarpur material through the stairs for construction work in the top floor of the flat No. 292, he bad seen four persons coming out of the house of the complainant around 12.15 in the day time. These four persons were later en identified as Chhotey Lal @ Shambhu, Pawan Kumar @ Shankar, Ashok Kumar Singh and Vimal Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused were not found in Delhi. However, one day the mother of accused Chhotey Lal @ Shambhu was intercepted when she had gone to sell the stolen property and on her interrogation accused Chhotey Lal @ Shambhu was arrested. The contractor Ranbir had employed Chhoey Lal and Pawan Kumar to carry out white wash in the house of the complainant, therefore, they knew the articles lying there. It is they who conspired to murder and commit robbery in the house of the complainant. Pawan Kumar had gone to sell the ring which had been stolen from the house of the complainant and made a disclosure statement. On his pointing the stolen property and other articles were recovered including a shirt with blood stains and shoes with blood stains. Pawan Kumar @ Shankar filed a bail application. Shri Mohinder Pal, Additional Sessions Judge granted the conditional bail on the ground that Sh. Lakhandar Mahto, the sole eye witness has denied having seen Pawan Kumar entering in the house or going out from the house as stated by the prosecution. The alleged affidavit of Lakhandre Mehto was filed in the Court of Sh. Mahender Pal, A.S.J., Shahadara. The learned A.S.J. believing and relying on the said affidavit of Lakhender Mehto granted conditional bail because by then his affidavit had not been verified by the police. Order of A.S.J. is :