SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is made by Sham Lal son of Rura Ram, challenging the order of grant of bail to respondents No. 2 to 4 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot Shri K.S. Uppal in connection with F.I.R. No. 37 dated 21.5.1996, under Sections 406, 498 -A and 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was registered on the statement of the petitioner before the police. Respondents No. 2 and 3 had filed the bail application in the Court of Sessions which was dismissed by Shri R.C. Sharma, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on July 6, 1996. Another petition for bail filed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 being bail application No. 142/2.8.1996 was allowed by Shri K.S. Uppal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on August 12, 1996. The petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of bail on the following grounds : -

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.A.G. for the State and the learned Counsel for the private respondents.

(3.) IT is true that two of the private respondents had filed the bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri R.C. Sharma, which was dismissed on July 6, 1996 and the bail application of the private respondents including the two earlier bail application was granted by Shri K.S. Uppal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 12th August, 1996 i.e. within a period of hardly one month after the passing of the previous order. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail application should have been put up before the same Additional Sessions Judge who rejected the bail application earlier. However, in this application for cancellation of bail, the question is what will be the effect if the bail application is not decided by the same Additional Sessions Judge. The propriety demands that subsequent bail application should be decided by the same judge. However, deciding of the bail application by the different Judge cannot be termed as illegal. From the papers on record, it is not shown to me that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri K.S. Uppal was made aware of the fact by any party that earlier bail application was rejected. Hence, on both these counts the bail cannot be cancelled.