TAHIR Vs. SHAUKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S.439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party 1, i.e. Shaukat by me on 11-10-85. In that case the opposite party was alleged to have committed an offence under S.302, I.P.C. (Crime No.53 of 1985) and a copy of the F.I.R. was annexed as Annexure-1 to the Bail Application No.13568 of 1985. From a perusal of the same it appears that Ayub Hasan and Tahir Hasan were the prosecution witnesses and after release from the jail in pursuance of the order granting bail to the opposite party, the opposite party 1 is alleged to have committed an offence under S.307/323, I.P.C. (Crime No.85/85) on 16-11-85 at 7 P.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged by Tahir Hasan, one of the injured persons, who was one of the prosecution witnesses in the earlier case and the opposite party 1 has been implicated along with some other persons. From a perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that the opposite party 1 has caused injuries to Ayub Hasan and Tahir Hasan P.Ws. in the earlier case under S.302, I.P.C. in which opposite party 1 Shaukat was one of the accused. The present F.I.R. has been filed along with the application accompanied by an affidavit as Annexure-A. The injury report of Ayub Hasan is Annexure B-1 and in that the injured had received three injuries, i.e., two contusion and one abraded contusion. The injury report of Tahir Hasan has been filed as Annexure-B-2, in which he had received two lacerated wounds.

(2.) Sri G.S. Chaturvedi learned counsel for the applicant urged that the opposite party 1 has misused the order granting bail and he has tampered with the prosecution witnesses and caused injuries to them and thereby he has disentitled himself to remain on bail. He placed reliance on Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand urged that the bail application was not filed as contemplated by Chap.XVIII R.18 of the Rules of the Court, 1952, inasmuch as paragraphs of the affidavit were not properly sworn and it was not indicated as to which paragraph was based on personal knowledge, which paragraph was based on record, which paragraph was based on legal advice and which one was based on information received and that no ground for cancellation of bail was made out and the injuries on the prosecution witnesses in the subsequent occurrence appear to be fabricated. Further there is a relation of the applicant who has been selected in I.P.S. and under his influence this application for cancellation of bail has been manipulated.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main point for consideration is as to whether the application is covered by the principles of cancellation of bail as required by S.439(2) of the Code and as to whether the application for cancellation of bail has been filed in accordance with Chap.XVIII R.18 of the Rules of the Court and whether the application for cancellation of bail was filed mala fide under the influence of the I.P.S. Officer.