SURESH Vs. SATYAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly granted bail to respondent No. 1 by equating his case with that of co-accused. He has read over to me paragraph 4 of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in which it has been mentioned that the co-accused Amrit was granted bail and that the case of respondent No. 1 cannot be distinguished from that of Amrit. He has read over to me the order regarding the bail granted to Amrit. The said order is at Annexure P-1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail to Amrit on the ground that he was residing separately for about last 20 years. This, of course, is a submission made by Advocate of Amrit and seems to be weighed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to Amrit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the averments made in paragraph 7 of the petition in which it has been mentioned that the respondent is in a position to tamper with the evidence and has been openly declaring and sending messages to the petitioner that the prosecution of the case should not be pursued and that the granting of bail has clearly emboldened the respondent who is threatening the petitioner and other witnesses with dire consequences. The averments, of course, are that but they are quite vague. So, no weight can be attached to them at this stage.