BIKKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case it is brought to my notice that the bail application of the petitioner, Sukhpal Singh was rejected by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Dr. Sarojnei Saksena by order dated 7.9.1995 in Crl. Misc. No. 14256-M of 1995. Thereafter he submitted another application for bail which came to be disposed of as withdrawn. It was followed by the third petition for bail, being Crl. Misc. 1352-M of 1996. In the memo of petition, while mentioning the number of the earlier petitions thus filed by the petitioner, it was indicated that Crl. Misc. 14256-M of 1995 was "decided". In other words, that information had left the matter to the guess as to what that decision was. It must be said that the petitioner should have been fair enough to clarify that the said petition had been dismissed. It is obvious that had that fact come to the notice of this Court, the last petition thus filed by the petitioner would have been dismissed straightaway on the simple ground that the bail was rejected in the past and no fresh grounds were spelt out. However, since the decision in respect of the rejection of the bail in earlier petition had not come to the notice of this Court, this Court considered the matter on merits and granted the bail on 8.2.1996. The cancellation of that bail is sought on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of rejection of the bail earlier and he was not entitled to the bail unless he spelt out fresh grounds for grant of bail. In the set of circumstances, the argument submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/complainant appeals to one's mind. If I were to decide the case solely on that ground, the matter would have been different. However, in this case, now it has been brought to my notice that since the grant of bail, there is no allegations of misuse of the liberty. Moreover, all the material witnesses, except the police witnesses are examined and for the evidence of police witnesses the case is fixed on 11th June, 1996. In view of that, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by simply making an academic decision. While cancelling the bail, one should also take into consideration the attending circumstances, including the present state of affairs. I, therefore, dispose of this petition as infructuous. Petition dismissed.