NAWAL KISHORE SINGH Vs. PURSHOTTAM MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the petitioner who in the application does not disclose his capacity and credentials is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Opposite Party No. 1, Purshottam Maharaj in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 10 of 2006 vide order dated 21.3.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 11719 of 2007.

(2.) THE reason for prayer of cancellation of anticipatory bail is attributed to the fact that the said petitioner, Purshottam Maharaj, had procured the order of anticipatory bail by concealing material facts and that he was threatening the petitioner for which a sanha, a copy whereof is appended as Annexure -6 to this application, had been filed by him before the Officer Incharge, Kotwali P.S. - Patna. Admittedly, there are no fixed rules governing the grant or rejection of a prayer for bail. While granting or refusing the bail, the court is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

(3.) IN the case of Panchanand Mishra V/s. Digamber Mishra, reported in (2005)3 SCC 143, the Apex Court had observed that the object underlining the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial or secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by a bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime. Prior thereto, in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V/s. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004)7 SCC 528, the Apex Court observed that the general rule that courts will ordinarily not interfere in matters relating to bail subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored. For the purpose of entertaining an application for bail a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice and only a satisfaction about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary.