MULTANMAL Vs. PARBATSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Multanmal for cancellation of the bail granted to one Parbatsingh by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in exercise of the powers under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused Parbatsingh was arrested on the 12th of June, 1949 and was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Balotra on 11th of May, 1950. By 5th of January, 1951, seven witnesses were examined for the prosecution and on that date he applied to the learned Sessions Judge for being released on bail. His earlier application to the trial Judge had been dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 16th of February, 1951 directed his release on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, The operative portion of the order is that the prosecution did not suggest that the accused would abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence and that there has been an undue delay on the part of the prosecution to bring witnesses to the court although it was a right of the accused to demand a speedy trial. He also observed that he had considered all the facts and circumstances of the case together with the question of delay in the trial and had come to the conciusion that it was a fit case for the grant of a bail.

(2.) ONE Multanmal moved this petition on 21st of February, 1951 that the bail should be cancelled. Mr. Chandmal, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that Multanmal was neither the person who lodged the first information report nor a witness in the case. In criminal cases in which the State is the prosecutor, it is only the State who may be affected by the grant of bail. In this case, the state has not preferred any revision or petition for cancellation of the bail. On notice being issued to the Government Advocate, he made a statement that according to the certain instructions of the Law Department he is unable to file such petitions unless instructed to do so by the Government and that in this particular case, he had not moved the Government and no instructions had been received. He, however, supported Multanmal and argued that in this court on several occasions, the support made by the Government was considered as a motion by the Government. Reference was made to an unreported decision Virdi Shanker vs. The State, revision No. 212 of 1950 decided on 6th September, 1950. I however, find from the judgment in that case delivered by Mr. Justice Bhardwaj that the Government had presented a petition soon after a motion by a private person. In my opinion, in the absence of a motion from the State, Multanmal had no locus standi to present this petition and the contention of the learned Government Advocate that his support to a motion like this without instructions of the Government should be taken as a motion by the Government cannot be accepted. Although the above decision is sufficient to dispose of this petition, elaborate arguments were advance 1 as to power of the High Court to interfere with order granting bail by the learned Sessions Judge and in deference to the very learned arguments made before me I propose to address myself to this question as well.