STATE OF BIHAR Vs. HARE KRISHNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an application by the State for cancellation of the Provisional Bail granted to the opposite-party by this Court by order dated 13-6-1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1735 of 1978. The Application has been pressed on various grounds.

(2.) The opposite-party is in judicial custody as an accused in Arrah Town P. S. Case No. 13 (12) 77 under sections 302/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act He has now been committed to the Court of Sessions to take his trial. The allegation against him, in short, is that he along with others fired and killed with pistol one Jitendra Choudhary, who was going on a Rickshaw in Arrah Town. After he had been taken into custody, prayer for release on bail was made on his behalf but it was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 2 2-1978. After a few months he again moved Sessions Judge, Arrah, for being released on bail on compassionate ground that he required specialised treatment at Delhi or Vellore. The Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for being released on Bail, but directed the State to make arrangement for shifting the opposite-party to All India Institute of Medical Science at Delhi. While the arrangements were being made by the State Government to take him to Delhi by train, he filed an application that he should be taken to Delhi by Air or by Road on ambulance. The learned Sessions Judge passed order on that Application on 23-5-1978. He did not pass any specific orders as to the mode of transport, but only cautioned the State Government to take due care for health and life of the opposite-party. On 136.1978 the oppositeparty moved this Court for being released on bail. S. S. Hasan, J. did not accede to the request for open bail but granted only provisional bail for five months. Shortly thereafter, the opposite-party was arrested in another case at Patna. On 25-7-1978 the State filed the present Application for cancellation of the provisional Bail granted to the opposite party.

(3.) The grounds urged on behalf of the State for cancellation of the Bail granted to the Opposite Party are firstly that order for Bail was obtained on the basis of his physical infirmity which was not true and secondly he had abused the privilege granted to him. The abuse of privilege alleged against the oppositeparty is of three categories, namely (a) the opposite-party never went to Delhi for medical treatment and was seen collecting tolls forceably with arms in Arrah Town (b) he threatened Premlata Choudhary, a sister of the deceased that her entire family would be shot and killed if she deposed against the accused and (c) that he was seen moving about it in the town of Patna with other armed desperados. He was arrested in that connection by the Police and is accused in a case under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.