STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Sandeep Singh and others at Police Station City Sirsa on the statement of one Jagdish Kumar. Sandeep Singh respondent filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. This application was allowed on 28.9.1992 and Sandeep Singh was directed to join investigation as and when called by the police. The present application has been filed by the State of Haryana under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. It was alleged that on 16.9.1992, Investigating Officer of the case gave a notice to the respondent to join the investigation and vide report dated 17.9.1992 Constable Sewa Singh informed that the respondent had refused to accept the notice. He wilfully refused to join the investigation and a report to that effect was entered in the Daily Diary Register at serial No. 10 on 20.9.1992. On 17.9.1992 the complainant reported that all the three accused in the case were threatening him and were asking him to withdraw the case.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the application were denied. He alleged that he had been joining the investigation as and when called by the police and false allegations were levelled against him to get his bail cancelled. It was further maintained that the allegations made by the complainant that he asked him to withdraw the case were also devoid of any truth as otherwise some action must had been taken against him.

(3.) IN paras No. 6 and 7 of the application it is alleged that a notice was issued to the respondent to join investigation on 16.9.1992 but he refused to accept that notice. So his bail order was liable to cancellation. This averment is devoid of any merit. The respondent's application for pre-arrest bail was granted on 20.9.1992 and on that day it was asserted that the petitioner had already joined investigation and had been interrogated and his co-accused were granted bail earlier. This fact was not denied by the learned State counsel. Moreover, there are no averments that after the respondent was allowed anticipatory bail, he ever refused to join investigation. It was conceded that investigation in the case had already been completed and challan had been presented in the court. The second contention that the petitioner threatened the complainant, also seems to be without any basis as otherwise if there had been any truth in the allegations some action must had been taken against the respondent by the police. I find no merit in the application and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.