NAIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') is for cancellation of bail granted to Surinder Singh in case FIR No. 25 dated 27.6.1995, under Sections 302/148/149/447 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Kurali, District Ropar.

(2.) SURINDER Singh respondent is one of the accused in the aforesaid case which is pending before the Additional Sessions, Judge, Ropar. With a view of seek bail during the pendency of trial, Surinder Sigh approached this Court in April, 1996. His bail application was declined vide order dated April 16, 1996. Another application was filed by him which came up for hearing on 13.1.1997 and relief claimed was granted i.e. permitted him to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. While approaching this Court, by way of note appended to the petition he stated, "that the petitioner has not filed any other such petition previously to the knowledge of the undersigned." Besides it, in para No. 3 of this petition it was stated by the petitioner that he is in judicial lock up for almost 1 years and no evidence has so far been recorded.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-accused argued that the factum of filing of earlier bail application and its dismissal by this Court was not known to him. Had it been known, he would have brought it to the notice of the Court. According to the counsel, in fact, this came to the notice of the Court when the counsel for the respondent put in appearance. Similarly, respondent Surinder Singh had no knowledge of the proceedings dated 13.5.1996 and precisely for this reason stated in his petition that no evidence has been led. Justifying the earlier order of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 13.1.1997, counsel argued that as held by the Apex Court in case reported as Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) JT (SC) 127, the cancellation of bail is not to be done in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial. Thus, the case needs to be examined in the ratio of the aforesaid judgment.