KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE FIR No 456 dated 13.11.1985 was registered for commission of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was bailed out by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he remained on bail till 3.4.1987 when his bail was cancelled by the Designated Court. The observation of the lower Court that Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the petitioner on bail is uncalled for inasmuch as the offence under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 was not mentioned or raised for by the prosecution before that Court and there was no application on behalf of the prosecution to cancel his bail already granted. It so happened, that on 3.4.1987. Mr. Saini the learned counsel for the petitioner there made a submission that the petitioner had been discharged in the theft case (meaning thereby case FIR No. 455 of the same date) and a photostat copy of the discharge report was produced. On the basis of the lower Court that in the present case, the petitioner be also discharged. The trial Court found that the discharge report was not a judicial order and dose not affect the merits of the case. The counsel when asked to cross -examine the witness, present in the Court, stated that he was no longer representing the petitioner, thereupon his statement was recorded. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was misusing his liberty and the bail granted to him was, therefore, cancelled. As a matter of fact till 3.4.1987, there was no application before, the lower Court that the petitioner was in any way misusing his liberty while on bail. In the circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is allowed bail to the satisfaction of the Designated Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Petition allowed.