STATE OF HARYANA Vs. CHAUDHRY RAM VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OFFENCE under Section 332/120-P of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was registered against Chaudhry Ram and others. Chaudhry Ram filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release on bail which was heard by Shri Suresh Chand Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. It was found by that court that as no countrymade pistol or cartridge had been recovered from Chaudhry Ram, a prima facie case under section 25 of the Arms Act punishable under Section 5 of the Terrorist &Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was not made out against him. He was thus ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate vide order dated June 19, 1992. The present petition has been filed by State of Haryana under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for cancellation of bail of the accused-respondent.

(2.) IT was averred in the petition that as the case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the Additional Sessions Judge could not take cognizance of the bail application which could be decided only by the Designated Court. Chaudhry Ram accused was the main author of the crime and he was consistently in search of an opportunity to get Pritam Lal murdered. He engaged Ranbir accused for this purpose on payment and Ranbir got Pritam Lal murdered through his accomplice Jagdish. After commission of murder of Pritam Lal, Joginder Pal complainant and other members of his family received telephonic warnings at their residence in Delhi regarding which reports were made at Police Station at Delhi. It was probable that Chaudhry Ram may tamper with the evidence or may even resolve to eliminate the prosecution witnesses.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. C. Sethi, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the petitioner and Mr. R. S, Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narula, Advocate counsel for the respondent-accused.