MOHINDER SINGH Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Mr. Harbans Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that he is pressing for the cancellation of bail granted to Jasbir Singh only and not of others. While granting bail to Jasbir Singh on July 13, 1983, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, observed in the following terms : - "As per the F.I.R., no special part in causing the death of Lakhwinder Kaur has been assigned to Jasbir Singh. His involvement is to the same extent as that of the other accused who have since been released on bail. That being so, this in my opinion, is sufficient reason for releasing Jasbir Singh also on bail. Further more according to the postmortem examination report, the cause of death was not determined and was subjected to the report of the Chemical Examiner. However, the report of the chemical Examiner was negative. That means prima facie it is not a case of homicidal death and this, in my opinion, can be said to be an exceptional circumstance for releasing the accused on bail."

(2.) THE solitary point pressed upon me by Mr. Harbans Singh for the cancellation of bail granted to Jasbir Singh is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone wrong while observing in his order that the report of the Chemical Examiner was negative and that in fact the report revealed that an organophosphorus compound and alcohol were found in the pieces of liver, spleen, kidney, lung etc., of the deceased. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly observed that the report of the Chemical Examiner was negative, but solely on this ground alone the bail granted to Jasbir Singh cannot be cancelled. In this case charge has already been framed and 10.11.1983 is the next date fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. It is no doubt true that whenever an accused, released on bail, misuses the privilege of bail and attempts to win over the witnesses or otherwise tempers with the prosecution evidence his bail should be cancelled. But it is also not in doubt that the power to take back into custody the accused, who has been enlarged on bail, has to be exercised with care and circumpectionand only if it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tempering with witnesses. See The State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi AIR 1978 S.C. 961). There is no allegation made on behalf of the petitioner that either Jasbir Singh or any of his co -accused has tried to misuse the privilege of bail. In the circumstances no case for cancellation of bail is made out and the application is dismissed.