GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet; thereby it was indicated by the Investigating Officer that charge sheet against the petitioner had not been submitted because there was no sufficient evidence against him to justify submission of charge sheet. In the set of these circumstances bail was granted to the petitioner. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge by exercising powers under Section 319, Cr.P.C. summoned the petitioner and framed a charge against him. It further appears from the submission that such step had been taken by relying on certain statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It will be a debatable point as to whether such steps under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be taken on the basis of certain statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. or not. The recent position as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court seems to be that there should be evidence before such a step is taken. That apart, the only question before me now is whether the petitioner's bail deserves to be cancelled on the ground that he has misused his liberty by giving threats to the father of deceased. The admitted position is that Madan Lal, the father of the deceased was not an eye witness because there is no potential danger to the accused. Other two brothers of the complainant are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. However, there is no allegation that any one of these brothers was threatened by the petitioner. The trial Court has referred to an enquiry file in respect of any enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID) on the allegations of giving threats by the petitioner. From the enquiry file it is indicated that a letter dated 8.4.1998 was received from Madan Lal and in that letter he had made grievance regarding threats by Gurdev Singh petitioner. The lower Court order does not indicate whether besides the statement of Madan Lal, some other material was also considered to form an opinion as to the veracity of the allegation in that matter. In is not clear from the order of trial Court as to the date and manner of communication of said threats. I am, therefore, unable to subscribe the view taken by the trial Court who passed order for cancellation of bail. I, however, make it clear that it would be still open to the trial Court to consider the subsequent events for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether there has been any misuse of the liberty granted to the petitioner. The order dated 28.4.1998 by which the bail of the petitioner was cancelled, is hereby set aside and it is directed that he be released on bail as was granted earlier.