KEWAL KRISHAN BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jyoti Kumar and Bhagwan Dass were arrested in case under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, Indian Penal Code, registered against them vide F.I.R. No. 858 dated 8-10-1989 at P.S. City Panipat on 22-10-1989 and were remanded to Police Custody on 23-10-1989 up till 25- 10-1989 as is apparent from Annexure P.4, copy of the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Again the accused were remanded from time to time to police custody up till 27-10-1989. On 27- 10-1989. Jyoti Kumar and Bhagwan Dass made a joint statement (Annexure P.1) before the Court that they were ready to deposit Rs. 90,000/- in the name of Suman Bala complainant within, one month as the price of 31 tolas of gold ornaments and that they had settled this matter outside the court. Thereafter, on the same date on the basis of this statement, Assistant Public Prosecutor did not press for police custody and the accused were granted bail by the-learned Judicial Magistrate vide order Annexure P.2.

(2.) These accused-respondent had to make payment by or before 27 -11-1989. Instead of doing so, Bhagwan Dass Arora wrote letter Annexure P.3 of that date to the father of Suman Bala to the effect that they had never voluntarily agreed to pay Rs. 90,000/- but were made to state so under coercion. This resulted in the complainant filing an application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents. The learned Magistrate vide order Annexure P/4 rejected this application on the ground that he had never granted conditional bail to the accused-respondents and that nonpayment of Rs. 90,000/- was of no consequence. Aggrieved against the said order Annexure P. 1 the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of the accused respondents.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. In view of the factum that the petitioners were in police custody since 22-10-1989 and have been interrogated by the investigating officer till 27-10-1989 when they were produced before the Court, it transpired that the offer to pay Rs. 90,000/- as the price of the gold ornaments by the accused-respondents may, to some extent, have prompted the Assistant Public Prosecutor not to press his request for police custody but it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the court had granted conditional bail to the accused respondents on the basis of this understanding between the parties. The trial court was the best judge in this regard and the perusal of order Annexure P. 4 clearly shows that the Judicial Magistrate had not granted conditional bail to the accused-respondents, especially when ample opportunity was afforded to the investigator to interrogate the accusedrespondents. No case for cancellation of bail is thus made out.