IN RE : CHARNEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in both Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. i.e. 12630 -M of 1996 and 11422 M of 1996 is whether the following ground in absence of any definite evidence on record, can be a ground for cancellation of bail granted on merits by the trial Court. It will be relevant to refer to the only ground as pleaded by the petitioner.

(2.) THREE co -accused namely Janak Raj, Parkash Chand and Kamail Singh were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 1.7.1996. Janak Raj vide order dated 1.7.1996 and other two people vide order dated 5.7.1996 have been released on bail.

(3.) THE grant of bail is the discretion to be exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the settled principles of law. I do not see any reason as to how the order of the learned Sessions Judge can be termed as an order to be erroneous or contrary to the established principles of law. In the normal course, if such discretion is exercised by the court, the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with such order. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Sunita v. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 116 is of no help to the petitioner. Primarily the facts of that case were totally different and distinct. The Court in that case had come to definite opinion upon perusing the First Information Report and case diary of the investigation that accused in that case had motive, prima -facie, to do away with the deceased and the investigation was found to be lacking in more than one way. In view this judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. The injuries alleged to have been caused by three accused to Rakesh Kumar, on medical examination, had been found to be simple. Certainly the observations made by the trial Court with regard to the applicability of Section 34 I.P.C. are not pronouncement of the case but are prima facie view of the case. Needless to mention that these observations are of no consequence in regard to trial which has to proceed in accordance with law.