ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.5.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Cr. Misc. Case No. 265/2012 (State Vs. Abdul Gafoor) whereby the learned Sessions Judge has directed cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner in relation to the F.I.R. No. 169/2011 registered at P.S. Pratapnagar, Jodhpur. The petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. which was initially registered for the offences under Section 454, 380 and 448 I.P.C. The police upon initial investigation found that the petitioner was responsible only for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. and accordingly, the investigation officer released him on bail exercising the powers under Section 436 Cr.P.C. as the offence was a bailable one. Subsequently further investigation carried out by the police revealed the commission of offences under Sections 454, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. Upon disclosure of these non -bailable offences, the State through the learned Public Prosecutor moved the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner as stated above. The application so moved by the State was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by the order dated 8.5.2012 and the bail bonds executed by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer were directed to be cancelled. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 8.5.2012 whereby his bail bonds have been directed to be cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in the cancellation application preferred by the State.

(2.) HE thus argued that as the law laid down by this Court is well settled that merely on the addition of a graver offence at the subsequent stage of investigation, the bail once granted to the accused cannot be cancelled, hence the instant miscellaneous petition be accepted and the order impugned be quashed as the same amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) UPON consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar and after going through the order impugned, it is apparent that initially the Investigating Officer granted bail to the petitioner under Section 436 Cr.P.C. as the offence which was being disclosed against the petitioner was under Section 448 IPC which is a bailable offence. Subsequent investigation revealed graver offences i.e. under Sections 454, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC as it was revealed on investigation by the I.O. that the petitioner forged a rent note. Upon disclosure of such facts, the cancellation application was moved before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the application by the order impugned.