VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Vijai Singh has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent Banwarilal. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:

(2.) A case under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent and some others in Police Station, Kotwali, Alwar vide First Information Report No. 571 of 1988. After the respondent was arrested, he moved an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code on 16-1-1989 through Shri S.R. Bajwa, Advocate. The said application was registered as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 182 of 1989 and was dismissed on merit vide order dated 27-1-1989 passed by Mrs. Kapur, J. On 5-4-89, the petitioner moved another application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code through Shri. S.C. Gupta, Advocate, praying that he be released on bail. The said application was registered as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 964 of 1989 and allowed vide order dated 24th April, 1989, passed by me. On 4-5-1989, the petitioner moved the present application, stating that in Bail Application No. 964 of 1989, the petitioner had concealed the fact that his earlier bail application had been dismissed and the petitioner has misguided the Court by stating that the said application (No. 964 of 1989) was the first bail application. The petitioner has thus, prayed that the bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 24-4-1989 be cancelled. This application came up before me on 25-5-1989 when J had directed that notice of the application be issued to the respondent for 4-7-89. The respondent, however, could not be served at his residential address and ultimately, vide order dated 28-9-89, directions were issued for issuing of bailable warrants and notice was ordered to be issued to his surety, for 6-11-89 and in this way, the respondent put in his appearance through Shri S.C. Gupta, Advocate, in this Court. In the reply filed on this Court on 8-12-89, the respondent had opposed this application. It has been contended that the bail once granted can be cancelled only if the accused has tampered with the prosecution evidence or if he has misused the liberty of bail by absconding or if the had again committed an offence after being released on bail, but there being no such condition, the bail could not be cancelled. It was further contended that the first bail application was moved by Shri Bajwa without any authority either from the respondent or from his son or wife or any other relation and the respondent was not in know of the fact that the first application had been moved by Shri Bajwa. It has also been stated that the petitioner has a good case for grant of bail and there is no bar to moving of the subsequent bail applications after the dismissal of the first one.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the above said two bail applications.