RAMRATI Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having regard to the settled law relating to grant Of bail, and principles for its cancellation, there is no justification to cancel bails in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The unfortunate incident of double murder was a sequel to a minor quarrel between two families' who have apparently been living a peaceful life in the village. (The families have no background of previous hostility.) (The accused person admittedly have clean antecedents and one of them, Jagan, is a graduate. There are no allegations that the accused are likely to abscond. Accused persons have been on bail since the middle of 1983 and have been regularly attending proceedings in the trial courts) There is no motion for cancellation by the administration. There are no independent eye-witnesses of the incident. The alleged eye-witnesses are members of the aggrieved family. There is, therefore, no danger of tampering with evidence either. Moreover, important eye-witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined. The accused persons are alleged to have given lathi blows and there are allegations that accused persons were also subjected to similar blows. At least 4 persons belonging to the family of the accused have admittedly received injuries. Injuries received by one of the accused persons is said to have been fairly serious. These features eminently justified orders of bail.

(2.) Cancellation of bail was sought to be justified on the basis of two reports of Agust 5, 1983 and October 26,1983. These reports, which were recorded at the instances of Jai Karan, a member of the aggrieved family, make allegations that the members of the family, who were witnesses, were threatened. When the report of August 8, 1983 was recorded, none of the accused persons, whose bails are sought to be cancelled, had even been granted bail. The other report was made two days after the bail of Jagan was confirmed by this court. None of these reports mention the names of any person in whose presence the threats were held out. Jaikaran is a Police constable still in service. The possibility of false reports of threat to the witnesses either to stall a bail order or to secure its cancellation could not be altogether ruled out. Moreover, there are no independent eye-witnesses who could be susceptible to influence or pressure.

(3.) Bail to Ram Kishan was granted subject to the condition that he would make provision for the maintenance of the widow and the children of the victim by an interest bearing deposit of Rs. 10,000.00 . The condition has since been satisfied by him. Cancellation of bail of Ram Kishan is sought to be justified on the further ground that the maintenance is not acceptable to the widow and the children of the victim, apparently because of sentimental reasons. But that would not justify the cancellation of bail in that, having regard to all the circumstances, bail even without such a condition could be justified.