RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shri Ramesh Chand was arrested on 2-6-1983 in connection with a case registered against him with police station Ghumarwin, district Bilaspur, under Sections 302/376. I P.C. The petitioner had been remanded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin to custody from time to time during the investigation of the said case. Since the police did not file a charge-sheet against him within 90 day, of the date of his arrest, the learned Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin ordered his release on bail on 2-9-1983. The said order was obviously passed in terms of Section 167 (2) Cr. P.C. which provision mandates that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused in custody under that section for a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years.

(2.) Before the petitioner could be actually released in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, however the State moved the Sessions Judge under Section 439 (2) of the Code for cancellation of the bail allowed to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sessions Judge it appears then passed an interim order suspending the operation of the order of the Magistrate releasing the petitioner on bail Later vide his final order passed on 21.9.1983 he accepted the prayer of the State, set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 2-9 1983 and ordered that the petitioner be arrested and committed to judicial custody. The petitioner bas now approached this Court in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge which operates to cancel his bail.

(3.) The impugned order of the Sessions Judge shows that the Stare had sought the cancellation of the bail allowed to the petitioner on the ground that as per information. If the Investigating Officer the relations of the accused had already started threatening the witnesses with direct consequences case they deposed against the accused The learned Sessions Judge, however, made no observations with respect to this apprehension of the Investigating Officer nor did he comment if this could be a valid ground for cancellation of the bail. All that appears to have influenced the learned Sessions Judge in cancelling the rail was that there were serious accusations against the petitioner who was alleged to have murdered a minor girl of ten years after committing rape on her On account of the serious nature of the accusation the learned Sessions Judge apprehended that the petitioner was likely to jump the bail and abscond to avoid the consequences of the offences alleged to have been committed by him The operative part of the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge reads like this; In view of the above discussion. I accept the application, set aside the order of the lower court dated 2-9-1983 and order that the accused be arrested and committed to judicial custody.