STATE OF M P Vs. JHALLOBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed seeking cancellation of order of bail dated 8-12-2000 passed by J. M. F. C. , Jabalpur in favour of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5.

(2.) A perusal of aforesaid impugned order reveals that against non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, Crime No. 524/2000 was registered at Police Station, Belbag, District Jabalpur, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 294 of the IPC. These non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 were released on bail by police on account of all the aforesaid offences being bailable. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC was added to the link of aforesaid offences on account of death of Ranno, the victim and hence by cancelling the earlier bail, police of Belbag took all the non-applicant Nos, 2 to 5 in custody and produced before the J. M. F. C. for seeking judicial remand. One co-accused Raju alias Salim was already an judicial custody since 3-12-2000. After dictating the order of remand of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, to judicial custody till 13th December, 2000, the learned J. M. F. C. allowed the bail application filed on behalf of non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5, and ordered their release recording following grounds:- -. . (Vernacular Text Omitted ). .

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that keeping in view the allegations levelled against non-applicant Nos, 2 to 5, the order of grant of bail may be said to have been passed by ignoring material evidence on record and in wrong exercise of discretion. My attention is drawn to Puran v. Rambilas, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2023. In support of this argument that if on ignoring the material evidence on record, a bail order is passed in wrong exercise of discretion, the same is liable to be cancelled. The relevant portion of aforesaid pronouncement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is as follows :-- "generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of the nature like bridge burning and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court has to be corrected. " It is also found explained by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that