CHHAILA PRADHAN Vs. BANSIDHAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Continuance or cancellation of the bail granted to the accused -opposite parties is the question for consideration in these three Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Instituted Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') which have been heard together and will be governed by this common order. The State has moved for cancellation of the bail granted to two of the opposite parties, namely, Banshidhar hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the application made by the first -informant in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 373 of 1986, besides pressing for cancellation . of bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 388 of 1986 which has been instituted by the State.

(2.) THE four opposite parties, besides others, are alleged to have committed the offence of double murder by assaulting jugal Pradhan and Abhay Pradhan to death in furtherance of their common object being armed with deadly weapons on December 11, 1985. They are also alleged to have committed offence punishable Under Sections 147, 148, ,30/. 323 and 325 read -with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder and causing grievous and simple hurt. A charge -sheet was placed against the opposite parties on March 11, 1986, showing the opposite parties Bansidhar and Giridhari as absconders as after the occurrence, these two persons absconded. The had made an application for antrcipatory which was rejected in Criminal. Miscelaneous Case No. 107of 1986 and thereafter surrendered in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Pun, and moved for bail in Criminal Miscelaneus Case No 249 of 1986 which was allowed. The other two opposite parties, namely, Bhagaban Pradhan and Nabakishore Pradhan, had earlier moved for bail in the Court of the learned Sessions judge in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No, 661 of 1985 and 116 of 1986 which had been rejected, but later they moved for there bail again in Criminal. Miscellaneous Case No. 250 of 1986 which was taken up again with Criminal Misce.laneous Case No. 249 of 1986 instituted by the two opposite parties and bail was granted to the four opposite parties by Mr. R. S. P. Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Pun.

(3.) WHILE it has been submitted on behalf of the applicants with reference to a number of judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and different High Courts including this Court that bail has been granted to the four opposite parties not only improperly, but also illegally by exercising judicial discretion arbitrarily and capriciously, it has been submitted on behalf of the four opposite parties that there should be exceptional circumstances for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite parties which arc non -existent and in the absence of supervening circumstances or additional materials obtaining in the case and indicating abuse of liberty by the opposite parties after they were admitted to bail, bail ought not to be cancelled. In support of these contentions, reliance has been placed on a number of reported cases which will be referred to hereinafter.