STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications have been filed under sub-clause (ii) of Section 439, Cr. P. C, for cancellation of bails granted to accused-respondents Atma Ram and Gyan Chand.

(2.) AN FIR No. 100/85 was filed at Police Station Udaipurwati, under Sections 302,460,411 and 414 Iepc. Both the accused-respondents were arrested and have subsequently been released on bail.

(3.) IT may be pointed out that while granting bail under the provisions of Section 439 (1), Cr. P. C, apart from several other factors, two paramount considerations are kept in view, i. e. , likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution evidence. From the brief facts and incidents, mentioned above, there seems to be grave apprehension that the accused-persons, who are quite influential and well-placed in life, have been making constant efforts to tamper with the prosecution witnesses by harassing them in all possible ways. IT seems to be incumbent to give proper weight to the affidavits filed in support of the incidents mentioned in the application. The Court has to appreciate correctly the entire position. When the accused-persons are released on bail, they are expected to behave in an exemplary way and should not indulge in influencing the prosecution witnesses in any way. IT is well settled that in an application filed for cancellation of bail, the prosecution agency is not required to prove the same by mathematical certainty or what is called as beyond reasonable doubt. In Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi (1), it was observed by the Apex Court that "the same standard of proof as in a civil case applies to proof of incidental issues involved in a criminal trial like the cancellation of bail of an accused. The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. Proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail". Applying the above principles, laid down by the Apex Court, I am of considered opinion that there is reasonable apprehension that the accused-respondents have been interfering with the course of justice and will continue to do so, if they remain enlarged on bail. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused- respondents that the prosecution witnesses, who have filed affidavits, are more or less formal witnesses and most of them are regarding recovery from the accused-persons, is not correct. IT may be pointed out that as given out by Shri Bajwa, 146 Tolas of gold and 50 kgms. of silver ornaments have been recovered from accused, Gyanchand; and 15 Tolas of gold and 50 Kgms. of silver ornaments were recovered from accused, Atmaram. The above-mentioned gold and silver is said to be belonging to the deceased lady, who was murdered. Therefore, these witnesses cannot be termed to be formal witnesses. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Chandan Singh and Another vs. Slate of Rajasthan (2), in which it was observed that bail should not be cancelled on vague allegations. This authority is of no help to the accused-respondents, since specific allegations regarding specific acts of the accused-respondents have been mentioned in the application, which cannot be termed to be vague.