MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH ALIAS SATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the statement of Mohinder Singh petitioner, case First, Information Report No. 81 of 1991 under Sections 302, 32, 324 and 302/34, Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Jhabal against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and one other for committing the murder of one Kabui Singh and causing injuries to Mohinder Singh, Satnam Singh and Major Singh respondents applied for bail. Both of them were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide two separate orders dated October 7, 1991. Satnam Singh was granted bail as he had not caused any injury to anyone and the only part attributed to him was that he caught hold of Kabul Singh deceased from his long hair. Major Singh had also not caused any injury to the deceased but he caused grievous and simple injuries to Mohinder Singh complainant. Mohinder Singh has now filed this petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents, on the ground that Major Singh had caused grievous injuries to him and Satnam Singh caught hold of Kabul Singh by his long hair and thus facilitated the commission of crime by his co-accused Gajjan Singh who gave fatal injuries Section 34, Indian Penal Code was well attracted in the case and bail was granted to the respondent on erroneous grounds.

(2.) THE respondents filed a reply to the application wherein it was alleged that they had not misused the concession of bail granted to them nor there was any allegation to that effect in the petition.

(3.) THE leaned Sessions Judge granted bail to the respondents on the ground that none of them had caused any injury to the deceased. There is no dispute that power to grant or refuse bail is not to be exercised by way of punishment before trial and only material considerations for the Court are (i) whether the accused would be readily available and (ii) whether he is likely to misuse the concession of bail by tampering with the evidence. Discretion of trial Court allowing bail to an accused person is not to be lightly interfered with. Bhagriath Singh v. The State of Gujarat, 1984(2) CLR 181 is an authority on this point. In the present case there are no allegations that the respondents ever absented themselves from Court or that they misused the concession of bail and interfered with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. The power to take back into custody the accused, who has been allowed bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection and when there are no allegations that the accused tried to misuse the privilege of bail, the bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled.