PURSHOTTAM LAL Vs. KISHAN KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Verma, J. Complainant Purshottam Lal has applied for cancella tion of bail granted to Kishan Kishore accused in case crime No. 49 of 1991 under Sections 306/498,1. P. C. Police Station Nanakmatta, district Nainital.

(2.) KISHAN Kishore was admitted to bail by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital on 24-12-1991 although the same presiding officer had rejected the bail application of the accused on 29-6-1991. The allegations are that a false affidavit was sworn by one Virendra Tiwari on behalf of KISHAN Kishore on 24-12-1991 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge Nainital that no bail application of the said accused was pending before the High Court although Criminal Misc. Bail application No. 15772 of 1992 record of which is before me shows that notice of that bail application moved before this court was given on 4-7- 1991 to the State and thereafter it was moved on 18-12-1991 in this court and was, ultimately, listed for hearing on 6-1-1992.

(3.) SRI Murlidhar jmisra, learned counsel for the complainant SRI Purshottam Lal and SRI P. N. Misra. Senior counsel assisted by SRI Sanjiv Ratna and SRI Atul Misra, Advocates have been heard and counter affidavit and rejoinder 'affidavit alongwith bail cancellation application have also been perused. Learned counsel for the applicant Purshottam Lal has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baij Nath v. Prem Chand, 1990 ACC 79 wherein it was decided that the degradation of society due to the pervious system of dowry and the unconscionable demands made by greedy and unscrupulous husband and their parents and relatives resulting in an alarming number of suicidal and dowry deaths by woman has shocked the legislative conscience to such an extent that the legislature has deemed it necessary to provide additional provisions of law, procedural as well as substantive, to combat the evil and has, consequently, introduced Sections 113-Aand 113-B in the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 498-A and 304-B in the Indian Penal Code. Further reliance has also been placed on Guru Charan Singh v. State, AIR 1978 SC 1979 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that| two para mount considerations viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tempering with prosecution witness relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others.