OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the Counsels for the parties at length.

(2.) By order dated 21/12/2000, this Court had stayed the arrest of the petitioner subject to joining investigation. Mr. Sran appearing for the State of Punjab has stated that the police has received a collective complaint dated 28/3/2001 stating therein that all the workers of the factory apprehend danger from the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bali has placed on record the complaint. Annexure R-1 dated 17/3/2001 in which it is stated that the petitioner along with four other persons whom the complainant did not recognise had threatened the complainant. Mr. Bali has submitted that since the petitioner is misusing the concession of interim anticipatory bail the same does not deserve to be confirmed. He has relied on a judgment of the calcutta High Court in the case of Gayaram Mandal v. State and, Others. On the other hand, Mr. Dhillon has submitted that the allegations made are of a general nature. These allegation have been made only to make sure that interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is not confirmed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel, I am of the considered opinion that these general allegations do not come up to the standard required for cancellation of the bail already granted to a person. The case of Gayaram Mondai (Supra) cited by Mr. Puneet Bali has been decided on peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. In that case, it transpired during investigation that the accused Bejoy Mondal had once been a terror and furious type of man by power of party. The investigating Officer without going into the allegation had recommended that it was not necessary to cancel the bail. The accused therein had also threatened to wipe out the entire family of the complainant. The accused had threatened the complainant whilst armed with lethal weapons like dagger and revolver that. He would take his life, cut his head and play football with it in the village. Such are not the allegations made in the present case. As noticed earlier in the present case the allegations are of a very general nature. No specific allegations have been attributed to the petitioner. In the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed as under: The High Court completely overlooked the fact that it was not for it to decide whether the bail should be granted but the application before it was for cancellation of the bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decision of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. TI The petitioner has also joined the investigation as directed by the earlier order dated 21/12/2000. Petition allowed.