STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DHEERAJ PAHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed the present petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent Dheeraj Pahwa by this Court vide order dated 10th of December, 1993, Annexure P-5 to the petition.

(2.) THE facts of the present case in so far as they are relevant for its disposal are as under.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate that the present petition be allowed. It will be seen that bail on merits was declined to the petitioner twice by this Court and this Court vide Annexure P-5 passed an order granting regular bail to the respondent although interim bail had already been granted by the learned Sessions Judge, vide Annexure P-4. It also appears to me that the ground for interim bail too was non-existent as in the reply filed by the respondent, there is no reference as to whether the heart by-pass surgery on the father of the respondent was infact conducted or not. It is note worthy that when the Additional Sessions Judge, had declined bail on merits to the respondent, the very same argument with regard to the necessity of looking after the respondent's father during his sickness was noticed but the same was repelled. In this situation, it is, indeed, surprising that once having rejected the bail application of the respondent taking note of the sickness of his father, the Additional Sessions Judge yet chose to grant interim bail on the same ground vide Annexure P-4. A reading of Annexure P-6 also indicates, that the respondent has been guilty of absenting himself for no reason whatsoever and on each occasion, some application was filed in order to ensure that his presence was voided. The argument of Mr. Aggarwal, that this Court had declined to cancel the bail of the respondent on the application filed by the complaint, is to my mind, without basis and as in a prosecution of the present kind, it is the State which is the prime over against the accused, Mr. Aggarwal has also argued that the father of the deceased and the two other eye-witnesses had appeared before the Court and had not supported the prosecution and as such, no case for cancellation of bail was made out. This argument to my mind goes against the interest of the respondent as it indicates that he had used the time while on bail to interfere with the prosecution evidence.