BHAGIRATHI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S. 439, Sub-Sec. (2), of Cr. P.C., 1973 wherein the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri by his order dated 12-9-1995 passed in G. R. Case No. 1205 of 1995 arising out of Pipili P.S. Case No. 152 of 1995.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to this petition are stated in brief as under :

(3.) The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 appearing through their counsel filed a counter to the petition denying all the allegations. A report was also called for from the Superintendent of Police, Puri about the action taken on the reports, annexures 2 to 5 lodged by the petitioner relating to the alleged incidents. After carefully going through the petition, counter and the report of the Superintendent of police and on hearing the counsel for the parties, it is found that though the petitioner alleged that he lodged written reports at Pipili P.S. relating to the alleged occurrences on 5-3-96, 17-3-96, 18-5-96 and 26-6-96, the report submitted by the S.P. shows that the petitioner orally reported about the incidents at the P.S. on the basis of which station diary entries were made and the matter was enquired into. As the offences alleged were non-cognizable in nature, the petitioner was directed to take shelter in the Court. The police also made enquiry into the allegation and in each case police also examined the witnesses, but the witnesses did not support the petitioner. It is noticed from the report submitted by the S.P. that the witnesses examined in those cases were none also but the witnesses whose names appeared in Annexures 2 to 5. It is further noticed from the report of the S.D. that the allegations were made only against the opposite party No. 2, but now the petitioner has come up with a case not only against opposite party No. 2 but also against opposite party No. 3. It appears that there is land dispute between the parties. It also appears that there is land dispute between the parties. It also appears that though the petitioner was advised by the police to approach the Court the petitioner has not filed any complaint case in the Court the relating to the alleged incident. From the report of the S.P. it further transpires that the petitioner wrote a letter to the S.P. alleging inaction on the part of the local police and being instructed by the S.P. the said letter was treated as an information and Pipili P.S. Case No. 159 of 1996 has been registered for the offences under Ss. 341, 294, 506 and 323, IPC and investigation is in progress. From his report, it further appears that in the said P.S. case the witnesses named in the FIR have been examined and they have denied their knowledge about the alleged occurrence. In the above circumstances, in absence of any material to support the case of the petitioner, it is difficult to hold that the opposite parties have misused the liberty granted in their favour. It is a well known principle that cancellation of bail can only be permitted only if by reason of supervening circumstances it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain the freedom during the trial. In the circumstances, it is held that no case is made out warranting cancellation of bail.In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed.Petition dismissed.