SITA RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the accused persons who number twenty-eight, has been filed against the order dated 3.12.1971 of the Sessions Judge. Arrah, under which he has cancelled their bail in a case which is said to be at present under Sections 148, 302 etc., of the Indian Penal Code, THIS case as well as its counter case are said to be still under investigation with the police.

(2.) AS it appears, the occurrence relating to the case in which the bails have been cancelled took place on 13.4.1971. On that very day, a first information report was lodged at the police station by Lachchuman Singh, who is opposite party No. 2 in this revision. Another first information report was also lodged at the police station by the other side on that day (13.4.1971). On the basis of those information cases under Sections 147, 148, 324, 379 etc. were registered and investigation taken up. The injured in the instant case, who subsequently expired in the hospital on 15.4.1971, was Ram Janam Singh, thereafter the sub-divisional Magistrate in this case cancelled the bail of these accused persons which had been granted by the police earlier. Then they moved the Sessions Judge, Arrah for bail which was duly allowed by him on 6.5.1971. AS it appears while granting them bail the Sessions Judge had heard both sides including the first informant Lachchuman Singh who had appeared in the case under power. Subsequently, after about seven months this Lachchuman Singh filed a petition before the Sessions Judge far cancellation of their bail, as granted earlier on 6.5.1971, on various grounds. Those grounds are detailed in the Sessions Judge's impugned order dated 3.12.1971 under which he has cancelled their bail.

(3.) THE other four grounds for the cancellation were the lodging of three sanhas from the informant's side on 8.5.1971, 17.5.1971 and 24.7.1971 and also filing of one information petition to the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 24.6.1971. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of these sanhas thought that the accused persons concerned had became emboldened on their bail being granted by the Sessions Judge in their favour and were threatening the witnesses of the prosecution with their lives. THEre is no dispute that except lodging of those sanhas nothing was done to find out the truth or otherwise thereof. THEre is nothing to show that the police had taken any action on their basis to ascertain whether the allegations made regarding the accused's interference with the witnesses concerned was really: true or not. In such circumstances, they have to be treated as having remained mere allegations on informant's part and it is difficult to make them basis for cancellation of their bail inferring on their strength that the accused persons had really tried to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in the case. Except these sanhas, no other material appears to have been furnished to the Sessions Judge to convince him that there was really abuse of privilege of bail on the part of these accused persons after they had been admitted to it.