MAHESH KHANNA Vs. ANIL KUMAR ALIAS MANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner - complainant under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to Anil Kumar alias Mangi son of Amar Chand alias Amir Chand, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 27.10.1995.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 alongwith his co -accused Sarabjit Singh, Head Constable No. 453, Abdesh Kumar (Driver of Respondent No. 1) and Gurmit Singh alias Mita were facing trial in a 'double murder' case for committing the murder of two ladies, namely, Mrs. Purnima Khanna and Mrs. Sunita Vohra. On the complaint of the present petitioner, F.I.R. No. 204, dated 17.11.1994 under Sections 302/34.201/120 -B, I.P.C. and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered. On 18.11.1994 i.e, on the next day of the occurrence, Anil Kumar, respondent No. 1 was arrested by the police from the Bharat Automobile Workshop while he was getting his Maruti Car white coloured. During interrogation on the same day and on the basis of the disclosure statement, which was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the police recovered one gold Bracelet weighing five tolas, one Diamond ring weighing half tola, one diamond erring weighting half tola from his residential house after opening the lock in the presence of the witnesses. The said gold ornaments were identified by the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses as those belonging to his maternal aunt, one of the deceased. On 21.11.1994 a .99 M.M. licenced pistoal (Cold Super) automatic, Made in U.S.A. bearing No. 3176 alongwith Magazine and two live cartridges of .9 MM bore was recovered from the rest room of his factory, namely, Hamir Industry, 396, Industrial Area, Ludhiana being concealed in the papers. The empty cartridges of .99 MM bore which was allegedly used in the Crime was also recovered from the spot. Respondent No. 1 approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail, which was declined by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 3.2.1995. Subsequently, he approached this Court for bail which was also declined on 15.5.1995 by V.S. Aggarwal, J. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 7017 (M) of 1995. Later, he filed second application for bail in this Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 10820 (M) of 1995, which was also dismissed on 25.7.1995 by J.B. Garg, J. Anil Kumar, respondent No. 1, approached this Court for the third time for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Criminal Misc. No. 15776(M) of 1995, which came up for preliminary hearing on 15.9.1995. After adjournment, it was finally fixed for arguments on 10.11.1995. During the pendency of the above application for bail bearing Criminal Misc. No. 15776 (M) of 1995 before this Court, respondent No. 1 approached the trial Court by filing a similar application for bail on 26.10.1995 and succeeded in getting release on bail from Shri S.S. Grewal, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 27.10.1995. It has been alleged that respondent No. 1 deliberately suppressed the facts from the trial Court that his earlier bail applications had been twice rejected by this Court and the third application for bail was pending before this Court.

(3.) IT is alleged that after being enlarged on bail, respondent No. 1 came to the house of the petitioner on 5.11.1995 and threatened him with dire consequences in also threatened him not to pursue the case any further. Since he had been in jail nearly for one year on account of the allegations made by the petitioner, the petitioner apprehends danger to his life at the hands of respondent No. 1. It is contended that the act of respondent No. 1 in suppressing the facts that his bail applications were twice rejected by this Court and the third application for bail is pending before this Court amounts to playing fraud on the Court in order to win his freedom. It is also submitted that the order of learned Additional Session Judge, dated 27.10.1995 is clearly an abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as it over -rides the orders of this Court passed an earlier occasions for the same relief. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that the concession of bail granted to Respondent No. 1 be withdrawn and he may be sent to prison for grossly misusing the process of law and for securing his release by practicing fraud upon the Court.