SHRIMATI NARAINI Vs. RAM RATTAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Rattan has been released on bail for an offence under Sections 380/406/506 of the I.P. Code. Initially he was released by the Magistrate, First Class, on 15 -10 -1973. Thereafter the Sessions Judge cancelled the bail on 23 -10 -1973 and at the same time granted interim bail for one day. Thereafter the period of interim bail was extended and finally the Sessions Judge granted him bail on 5 -11 -1973. One Shrimati Naraini complainant whose property was stated to be either stolen or misappropriated by Ram Rattan, has filed the present petition under Section 561 -A, Code of Criminal Procedure (old), for quashing the order of bail.

(2.) AS a fair trial is the main objective of the criminal procedure, if the order of releasing on bail is conducive to the interest of fair trial the same must be upheld. In a non -bailable offence the Sessions Judge is at liberty to grant bail and when he has once granted bail, the same can be cancelled by the High Court on a variety of considerations. These considerations are, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, and the largest interests of the public or the State. If these factors are found in favour of not granting bail, the order of the Sessions Judge can be cancelled and bail can be refused. The learned Counsel led me through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and in my opinion the circumstances pointed out were sufficient to grant bail and the order was rightly made. In The public Prosecutor v. George Williams alias Victor AIR 1951 Madras 1942 five cases were pointed out in which bail may be cancelled: (1) where the person on bail, during the period of bail, commits the very same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted, and thereby proves his utter unfitness to be on bail; (2) if he hampers the investigation; (3) if he tampers with the evidence; (4) if he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground, or beyond the control of his sureties; and (5) if he commits acts of violence, in revenge, against the police and the prosecution witness and those who have booked him or are trying to book him. None of these circumstances is made out in the present case. The mere allegations in the petition that the accused is likely to hamper the investigation or that he is likely to abscond or that he has denied opportunity for the preparation of defence, may be of no avail.