GIRDHAR PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for cancellation of bail under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. has been filed by the complainant petitioner in respect of the bail granted to the non-petitioner Bhawani Shanker, by this court on 8-1-81 Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused non-petitioner first raised a preliminary objection that no application for cancellation of bail can be filed by the complainant. It is argued that it is a case challaned by the police under section 307/34 Penal Code and only State is entitled to move an application for cancellation of bail. I see no force in this preliminary objection Sec. 439 (2) Crimial P.C. reads as under .

(2.) There is no restriction in the above provision that such application is not maintainable by a complainant. It is a different matter as to under what circumstances and on what grounds such application should be allowed, but it cannot be held that no such application is maintainable at all no behalf of the complainant. I find support in my above view by a decision of this Court Jagram Vs. Ghamandi and others, 1980 RCC 364. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bhandari is, therefore, over-ruled.

(3.) it is contended by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner complainant that the accused non-petitioner made a wrong averments in his application for the grant of bail that he was a regular student of 9th class in Government Higher Secondary School, Baran District Kota. In this regard a certificate of the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Baran dated 3-2-81 has been filed by the complainant to show that the name of the school roll on 16-1-80, that is long before the filing of the bail application in this court. It is argued that this circumstance that the accused non-petitioner was a regular student lay heavily in the mind of the court as one of the factors for releasing the accused on bail on 8-1-81. It is also argued that the accused is a habitual offender. Number of criminal cases are pending against (he accused and even after his release from this court on 8-1-81, the accused did not stop his criminal activities. In this regard the complainant has filed certain documents to show that cases have been registered against the accused for act committed by him on 27-1-81, 1-2-81, 8-2-81 and 9-2-81, In view of all these circumstances it is submitted that the accused has mis-used the liberty of bail granted in his favour and bail order should be cancelled and the accused be directed to be arrested.