GURDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application on behalf of Gurdip Singh and Puran Singh against whom a case under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323, read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code, is pending enquiry. Though the petition was filed under Section 561-A, read with S. 498, Code of Criminal Procedure, but it is prayed that this may be treated as a petition under Section 439 of the code as the quashing of the order of the Sessions Judge dated 2nd December, 1969, is sought in this petition.

(2.) GURDIP Singh was allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on 22nd September, 1969, while Puran Singh petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 5th September, 1969. Subsequently, Joginder Sing complainant applied for cancellation of the bail of the accused and their companions which resulted in the impugned order. by this order the bail of Gurdip Singh and Puran Singh was cancelled on the ground that they had misused the concession of bail by threatening the eye-witnesses and by causing injuries to them. This finding was reached on the basis of the first information report which was lodged against Gurdip Singh, Buta Singh and Puran Singh accused by the complainant, on the allegations that these accused, accompanied by one Jagir Singh, had threatened and assaulted the complainant his mother Gurpal Kaur and his sister Surinder Kaur, with the object of dissuading them from appearing against the accused in the present case. Support was also sought from the medico-legal certificate of Joginder Singh. In view of the first information report and the medical certificate produced before the learned Sessions Judge, he came to the conclusion that Gurdip Singh and Puran Singh had misused the concession of the bail allowed to them, and he, therefore, passed the impugned order cancelling the bail of the accused.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the order is illegal inasmuch as the conclusions that the accused had misused the privilege granted to them had been arrived at on the basis of the material which was not evidence and could not be used to give the finding against the accused. Support for this argument was sought from two unreported decisions of this Court and from Sant Ram v. State, AIR 1952 J and K 28 and also from Madhukar Purshottam v. Talab Haji Hussain, AIR 1958 Bom 406.