KAILASH J THAKORE Vs. KARMAN RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Permitted to convert this application into Misc. Criminal Application. Leave to amend the cause title by adding Karman Rama and Amra Hari as party-respondents. 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. N. D. Gohil appearing for the respondent-State waives the service of Rule. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is heard and decided today.

(2.) The grievances voiced by Mr. E. E. Saiyed, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that, though the application for the cancellation of bail against the respondents-accused came to be filed by the original complainant, as long back as on 5-5-1995 and yet till today, that is to say for about more than one and half years quite surprisingly the same has not been heard and disposed of. Making good this submission, Mr. Saiyed has invited the attention of this Court to the copy of the Rojkam proceedings annexed to the petition at Annexure "C", from where it is pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has merrily went on adjourning the case from one date to another, for about more than 37 times ignoring altogether the overall importance and significance of the cancellation of bail. It also further appears that the learned P.P. also has not taken desired interest in assisting the Court in seeing that such applications are heard and decided at the earliest.

(3.) Now the above state of affairs highlighted by Mr. Saiyed indeed clearly indicates - what a relaxed attitude. Presumably and possibly may be because the said application for cancellation of bail came to be filed at the instance of private complainant through learned Advocate appearing for him. But then so what ? Thereby cancellation of bail never loses its due importance and urgency in view of the allegations narrated in the application for the same. Further, we all know that many a time for whatever right or wrong reason the State do not challenge the order granting bail or if it challenges it takes a considerable long time and accordingly by the time it is filed before the appropriate Court, much unfortunate things many a time happen where the accused abusing the liberty, while on bail by threats, promise, inducement and even actual assaults and jumping the bail delays the trial, defeats the prosecution, ultimately bringing about the miscarriage of justice. In this view of the matter, merely because an application for cancellation of bail came to be filed by the private party, it is not permissible to take it lightly. In fact, once an application for the cancellation of the bail is entertained by the Court, it should invariably be decided as early as possible, by taking all necessary care-steps by all concerned, namely, the concerned Court, learned P.P. and the process serving agency even if it is filed at the instance of the original complainant or any other aggrieved prosecution witness. Not to hear and decide such important applications in time and sit quietly indefinitely is as good as putting premium on an risking abuse of liberty by accused while on bail to the greatest prejudice in particular of the concerned prosecution witnesses personally and in general to the prosecution case. This short of insensivity and inefficiency is quite hazardous like dullard sitting on the explosive volcano .