BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. L. Singhal, J. This is a petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of Arun, opposite party No. 1.

(2.) 1 have heard Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri VB. Mishra and the learned AGA for the op posite parties.

(3.) THE principles regarding the can cellation of bail are now well settled. In Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cri. L. J. 3712 (SC), the Supreme Court after referring the earlier decisions of the court held that the grounds for cancellation of bail under Sec tion 437 (5) and 439 (2), Cr. P. C. are identi cal and the bail granted can be cancelled on the following grounds :- " (i) where the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) where he interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) where he attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (iv) where he threatens witnesses or indul ges in similar activities, which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) where there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) where he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming un available to the investigating agency, and (vii) where he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming un available to the investigating agency, where at tempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. " . 6. Earlier, in the case of Delhi Ad ministration v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 Cri. L. J. 952, the Supreme Court has held:- "rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail appli cation in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail nece ssarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it wou ld be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. THE fact that prosecution witness have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the in ference that the accused has won them over. THE objective fact that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a casual connect ion with the subjective involvement therein of the accused. Without such proof, a bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the off chance or on the supposition that witnesses have been won over by the accused. Inconsistent testimony can no more be ascribed by itself to the influence of the accused than consistent testimony, by itself, can be ascribed to the pressure of the prosecu tion. " 7. Thus, the rejection of bail when the bail petition is moved is one thing while the cancellation of bail already granted is quite a different matter and the cancellation of bail is permissible only if by reason of supervening circumstances the Court finds that it is no more ex pedient to the fair trial of the case to allow the accused to remain on bail. In the present case none of the grounds for can cellation of the bail, recited above has not satisfied simply because the bail should not have been granted or the merits of the case did not warrant the grant of bail, is not a ground for cancellation of bail. I have through the impugned order grant ing bail. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the various aspects of the case has enlarged the ac cused opposite party on bail. 8. No ground for cancellation of bail is made out. Hence, the application for cancellation of bail is rejected. Application rejected. .