STATE Vs. E VEERAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10-2-1993 the Inspector of Police, L & O R-7 K. K. Nagar Police Station registered a case against one Veeramani the respondent in all the three petitions in his Station Crime No. 288/93 under Sections 148, 341, 302 and 506 II I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. on the complaint that at 8. 45 a. M. on that day, the said Veeramani and his associates wrongfully restrained one Annadurai at the junction of 100 feet Road and Periyar Street in front of sakthi Vinayagar temple, assaulted him with patta knife and committed his murder. ON the same day another complaint in Crime No. 237/93 under Sections 147, 148, 120b, 341, 307, 506 (11) and 109 read with Section 149 I. P. C. was registered against the said Veeramani by the Inspector of Police (Law & Order), b-2 Esplanade Police Station on the allegation that at about 4. 00p. M. on 10-2-1993 he had attempted to commit the murder of the complainant therein by stabbing with patta knife. ON 11-2-1993 at 4. 00 P. M. one Munusu, Inspector of police, Foreshore Estate Police Station lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police (Law & Order), D5 Marina Police Station in Crime No. 61/93 under section 332, 336, 324, 427 and 307 I. P. C. alleging that on 11-2-1993 he was assigned the specific task of apprehending Veeramani in connection with the above said two cases. When he had gone to Ayodhya Kuppam along with his Police party, Veeramani and his henchmen threatened the Police party and attacked him with patta knife aiming at his head.

(2.) RESPONDENT Veeramani was arrested on 11-2-1993 by the inspector of Police (Law & Order) E-5 Foreshore Estate Police Station and was remanded on custody. Thereafter, he was detained under Act 14 of 1982 as a bootlegger from 16-2-1993. After the expiry of the detention on 15-2-1994 he continued to be in custody.

(3.) AS stated in ASlam Babalal Desai v. State Of maharashtra (A. I. R. 1993 S. C. I) rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it mustn't be lightly resorted to. The grounds for cancellation of bail under Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437 (1) or (2) or 439 (1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) at tempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. So the prosecution in order to succeed must show that the activities of the accused come under either one or more of these heads or under the head of a similar nature. Bearing these principles in mind let us now examine how far the conduct of the respondent/accused herein invites the cancellation of bail granted to him.