RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Rajinder Singh was the victim of the offence. In an assault by the accused he sustained as many as 9 injuries indicated in the medical certificate produced in Court. The X-ray report further indicates that he has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of the leg on left fistula, fracture of the left wrist and radius, fracture of two ribs right side and fracture of 4th and 5th matacarpals. He is still under observation since 4.5.1998, the date of incident.

(2.) THE grievance now raised by the petitioner-victim is that the accused- respondents in this case secured bail from the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.6.1998 on false representation that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, though, in fact, on that date he was not discharged but came to be discharged from the hospital on 11.6.1998. It is further submitted that again he was taken to the hospital for further operations twice to set right the fractured bones mentioned above. He is still undergoing extensive medical treatment of the various injuries and the fractured bones as referred above. It is, therefore, submitted that bail order which has been obtained by false statement to the Judge should not be allowed to sustain.

(3.) THE primary question would be whether the bail obtained on either wrong or false statement should be allowed to sustain or nor ? In my opinion, if such orders are allowed to continue that would be nothing but continuance of an order which was obtained by exercise of fraud on Court. In my opinion, in such cases, the question is not whether the liberty under bail is abused or not. The question is whether order was obtained on proper representation of facts or by quoting false facts. The matter is to considered from the angle of propriety of order which was then based on either mistaken or false data before the Court. In the case of Delhi Administration (supra) cited before me Their Lordships were considering the question of cancellation of bail because the allegation was that witnesses have turned hostile; and that was put forth as ground to indicate that evidence was tampered. Their Lordship, for reasons given in paragraph 13 of the report declined to act upon such submissions. On facts that case is not at all applicable to the present case. In the instant case the very inception of the order is based on false statement made by the Investigating Officer.