DHARARN CHAND SANKHLA Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr1. M. Petition No. 11457-M of 1998, under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer for grant of bail in case F.I.R No. III dated 22-4-1996 under section 302/120-B/34 I.P.C. Police Station Samalkha and later on registered as RC-7(S)/(96) SIU - V /SICII/CBI/New Delhi under sections 302/ 34/120-B I.P.C. Central Bureau of Investigation. New Delhi for the same offences while Cr1. M.No. 8903-M of 1997 has been filed by the State through Central Bureau of Investigation, under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of bail to Som Dutt Tyagi granted vide order dated 31-3-1997 by the Additional Sessions Judge (1). Panipat in the above said FIR Both these petitions arise out of one and the same F.I.R therefore: the same are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) It is available from the record that after registration of the case, the investigation (for short conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI) During investigation. Som Dutt Tyagi co-accused was arrested and the present petitioner himself surrendered in the Court on 7-1-1997 and since then he is in custody. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for Dharam Chand Sankhla that the petitioner filed an application for releasing him on bail but that prayer was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Panipat vide his order dated 3 1-3-1997 and his Cr1. M. No. 13238-M of 1997 was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13-1-1998. At this juncture, it was argued by the learned counsel for the C.B.L that once the petition for bail of Dharam Chand Sankhla was declined by this Court on merits, no fresh ground for granting bail to him is made out and on that score alone, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In order to overcome this difficulty, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition has been filed on the ground that earlier the petition for bail made before the learned AddI. Sessions Judge was declined while the investigation was still going on and charge sheet had not been filed. As regards dismissal of bail petition by this Court that was dismissed more than six months prior to the filing of present petition Dharam Chand Sankhla had surrendered in the Court on 7-1-1997. The prosecution is to examine as many as 134 witnesses. In a period of more than one and half years from the date of surrender of the petitioner on 7-1-1997, and after rejection of prayer for bail by this Court on 13-1-1998, the prosecution has examined only seven witnesses. The evidence of those seven witnesses is only of formal nature. It was further submitted that .no doubt two more police officials were examined as prosecution witnesses but only chief examination has been recorded and they are yet to be cross examined. That goes to show that prosecution is proceeding at a snail pace and it will take pretty long time to examine all the witnesses. It would be too harsh to keep the accused in custody till the conclusion of trial in a case solely dependant on circumstantial evidence. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) It was vehemently argued that the petitioner had filed a number of civil and criminal cases against the deceased and he might be feeling offended and on that count, the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case due to political interference and manipulations. It was contended by the learned counsel that even if some motive is there, which according to the prosecution is a very strong circumstance but the ground of motive alone which is yet to be proved at the trial cannot be taken as a sound ground for declining bail to the petitioner especially in a case entirely dependant upon circumstantial evidence. It has also been submitted that as is borne out from the charge sheet, there are more serious allegations against Som Dutt Tyagi co-accused of the petitioner who was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (1), Panipat vide his order dated 31-3-1997. Therefore, it is an added ground to release the petitioner on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the C.B.I. making reference to the evidence collected during investigation and that produced at the trial has strenuously contended that the accused is involved in a serious case of murder, therefore, is not entitled to bail especially when the previous petition for bail was declined by this Court after critical examination of the prosecution evidence.