UPENDRA KUMAR SAHOO Vs. GIRIDHARI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the informant under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CodeT) for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 by order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur in G.R. Case No. 1 of 1996. The aforesaid case was registered under Sections 341/323/379/506/34, I.P.C. The Magistrate granted bail on the ground that though the alleged offences were non-bailable, they were triable by the Magistrate and was further held that since the accused persons were local persons there was no possibility of their abscondence.

(2.) The learned counsel for the informant submitted that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. clearly made out a case under Sections 395 and 307, I.P.C., as such the Magistrate should not have granted bail to the opposite parties merely because the case was registered under sections 379 and 506. I.P.C. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted the relevant case diary. The accused persons have entered appearance through the advocate. It has been contended on their behalf that an application for cancellation of bail at the instance of the informant is not maintainable. It is further submitted that since there is no allegation that the accused persons after being released on bail, have abused their liberty in any manner, the discretionary order of bail granted in their favour should not be cancelled.

(3.) The F.I.R.st submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused persons is not tenable. It is true that ordinarily it is the duty of the State to prosecute the accused persons specially in cases relating to cognizable offences. However, it cannot be said that in criminal cases being pursued by the State, the informant has no say or any locus standi. The jurisdiction of Sessions Judge or High Court under section 439(2) of the Code is very wide and attention of the Court seeking cancellation of bail of accused persons can be drawn by the State as well as the informant. The fact that the State is not keen about cancellation of bail, granted to an accused person may be a relevant consideration specially in less serious offence involving lesser punishment. But the application of an informant or an injured or even a witness for cancellation of bail cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of lack of locus standi.