SUKHDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for cancellation for regular bail granted to the respondent No.2 Jagpal Singh vide order dated 29.04.2015 on the ground that the deceased made a statement on 13.09.2013 which was duly signed by the Doctor in which prosecution story has been duly corroborated. The said statement is dying declaration and, therefore, concession of bail granted to respondent No.2 is based on incorrect appreciation of prosecution story.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant states that the statement of the then injured (deceased) was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of Doctor after obtaining the opinion of the Doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement on 13.09.2013. With the recording of statement of Baljinder Singh @ Tidda, delay, if any, stood explained and statement is admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. This part of prosecution story was concealed by the petitioner/respondent No.2 while seeking regular bail in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel relies upon Jai Krishan v. The State of Punjab and others, 2010 1 RCR(Cri) 249 Pooja Bhatia v. Vishu Narain Shivpuri and another and Sita Ram v. Balbir @ Bali and another, 2013 4 RCR(Cri) 1055 to contend that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Concession of bail obtained by concealment of fact vitiates everything and the order based on such fraud has to be recalled. Power to cancel bail on judicial consideration is unfettered and even this exercise can be done by the Court suo motu without there being any application on behalf of the complainant. No person can be beneficiary of his own fraud.