AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>S.S.Saron, J.</DJG> Amrik Singh, who is complainant in case FIR No.101 dated 3/8/2004 registered at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur for the offences under Sections 302, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 prays for cancellation of the bail granted to Nasib Singh (respondent No.2) by this Court on 2.3.2005.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2, who is the accused in the case has misused the concession of bail after his release on 2.3.2005. He has referred to the daily diary report dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure-P.1) and another report dated 23.4.2005 (Annexure-P.2) as also the application dated 8.5.2005 (Annexure-P.4) made by Asa Singh, who is the eye witness in the case, making allegations of threats held out by respondent No.2. It is contended that the Police has only initiated proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) and has not taken any substantial action on the complaint. Therefore, for the misuse of the concession of bail, it is contended that the bail granted by this Court on 2.3.2005 is liable to be cancelled.

(3.) In response, Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for respondent No.1-State has submitted that Sarabjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur has filed his reply in this case in which the allegations of inaction by the Police has been denied. It is contended that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner and Asa Singh, security proceedings in terms of Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated and Police had taken action in accordance with law. Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner and the witness Asa Singh have been making false and frivolous complaints only for the purpose of seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. In fact, there is nothing substantial to support the allegation as has been made by the petitioner and Asa Singh. The allegations as made in the reports Annexures-P.1, P.2 and the complaint Annexure-P.4, it is contended, are bereft of any supporting evidence. Besides, it is contended that the security proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 have been dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in terms of order dated 2.9.2005 (Annexure-R.2/3). 3. Therefore, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Rejection of bail is on one footing but the provisions seeking cancellation of bail is indeed a harsh order because it takes away the liberty granted to an individual.