PREM SINGH Vs. GURVINDER SINGH ALIAS PINKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 21.3.1993 case F.I.R. No. 24 was registered at Police Station, Mohali under Sections 376, 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents No. 1 to 3 and another. The respondents were arrested in this case and Surinder Pal Singh respondent No. 2 was released on bail by this court on 2.6.1993 and Parminder Singh on 31.5.1993. Gurvinder Singh was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar on 5.6.1993. Prem Singh father of Harinder Kaur prosecutrix has filed this petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of respondents No. 1 to 3. He alleged that from the very beginning the Investigating Agency was helping the accused and did not collect proper evidence regarding the Date of Birth of the prosecutrix. The Date of Birth of the prosecutrix was 15.1.1979 and at the time of occurrence she was less than 16 years of age but the petitioners were granted bail mainly on the ground that according to ossification test age of the prosecutrix was 16-1/2 years and one of the accused namely Partap Singh alias Mithu was not in India at the time of incident. It was further alleged that Gurvinder Singh and Parminder Singh respondents misused the concession of bail and they passed in front of the house of the petitioner on 18.7.93 and 25.8.93 shouting that the persons who prosecuted the case will face dire consequences. This incident was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Mohali. The petitioner and his wife were in Government service and they remained absent from their house. They had shifted Harinder Kaur to Samrala. In case the respondents remained on bail the witnesses will not be able to depose fearlessly.

(2.) IN their return the respondents denied that they ever passed in front of the house of the petitioner on 18.7.93 or on 25.8.93 accompanied by other boys and alleged that these averments were made falsely by the petitioner to serve his own end. They never challenged the petitioner as alleged by him. Parminder Singh and Gurvinder Singh also filed affidavits affirming that the contents of the reply were true and correct.

(3.) THE petitioner has averred that two of the respondents passed in front of his house 2/3 times in the company of others and abused and challenged them. This averment has been denied by the respondents by way of affidavits duly sworn by them. There are no averments that the respondent contacted any of the witnesses and tried to tamper with the evidence. They are attending the court regularly. Power to take back into custody the accused who has been enlarged on bail, has to be exercised with care and circumspection and only if it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with evidence. Simply by alleging that the accused passed in front of one's house shouting something will not be a justifiable ground for cancellation of bail. The petition is bereft of any merit and the same is dismissed.