KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to Vijay Pal respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.6.1997 in case FIR No. 53 dated 28.1.1997 under sections 498-A/304-B IPC registered at police station Sadar Sonepat at the instance of Karam Singh petitioner father of the deceased wife of Vijay Pal.

(2.) AFTER the registration of the case Vijay Pal and Ankur Devi could not be arrested by the police which led the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat to issue non-bailable warrants against them on 11.4.1997 returnable on 25.4.1997. After the issuance of non-bailable warrants, Vijay Pal and Ankur Devi moved the Court of Sessions Judge, Sonepat for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, Ved Pal and Ankur Devi were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24.4.1997.

(3.) THERE appears to be no substances in the contentions raised. It cannot be disputed that rejection of the bail application is easier than cancellation of bail. Once the bail has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the applicant has to make out sufficient grounds for cancellation of bail. It is not the case of the applicant that any application for cancellation of bail on the alleged threat extended to the petitioner and the witnesses was made to the learned Sessions Judge with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also not the case of the applicant that Swinder Singh son of Ram Kishan who is stated to be a prosecution witnesses in the case ever made such application to the learned Sessions Judge. The allegations levelled are of general nature. Not only this, the Doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination of the dead body of Mokesh deceased and formal witnesses have already been examined and now the case is fixed for 21.4.1998. It is expected that in all probabilities the remaining witnesses would be examined on the said date. Karam Singh, the first informant and father of the deceased is not likely to restrain himself from coming to the Court to depose against the accused persons at the trial on account of the alleged threat given to him by respondent No. 2. It is also not the case of the applicant that respondent No. 2 is tampering with any evidence produced by the prosecution or that he or his co-accused Ankur Devi who is on bail have not made themselves available to the Court for facing trial on earlier occasion or in future they would not be available to the Court during the trial.