UNION OF INDIA Vs. PANNURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been moved for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the non-petitioner Pannu Ram. The facts in brief are that on 20.5.1989 a red colour Maruti Car bearing No. PAL 5266 was apprehended near Nasirabad and at that time three persons were travelling in the car. They were, one Kashmiri Lal, who was the driver and the present non-petitioner Pannu Ram and one Phoolaram were seated on the back seat. About 79.100 Kgs. of contraband opium was found concealed behind the flap boards of the four gates as also underneath the two rear speakers of the car. All the three persons were arrested, the opium was seized and after investigation, nonpetitioner Pannuram moved a bail application and this was granted by this Court on 8.3.1990. It is for the cancellation of this bail that the present petition has been moved. It has been contended that the non-petitioner Pannuram is the brother-in-law of the main accused Kashmiri Lal and this fact could not be placed before the Court at the time the bail was granted. The non-petitioner Pannuram pleaded that he was a passenger, had taken a lift in the car was accepted. It has been pointed out that even as per the statement of the non-petitioner recorded under Section 53 A of the NDPS Act, he had admitted his implication in the transaction dealing with the opium. Accused Phoolaram was found to be involved in other cases also under the NDPS Act. He argued that if the non-petitioner is allowed to remain on bail then he would tamper with the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that the non-petitioner has been regularly attending the trial and even he appeared before this court, then there are no grounds for cancellation of bail as he is not mis-using the liberty in any manner.

(2.) THE arguments in this case were heard and the counsel for the petitioner U.O.I. was present. THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time the bail application was allowed, correct material was not placed before the Court and because of this, the Court was misled. If the counsel appearing for the State did not place all the material before the Court then merely because another counsel has thoroughly studied the matter, it would not become a case for cancellation of bail. While granting bail, this Court had first asked the Investigating Officer to find out the background about the accused and place the material before the court. But such a report was not submitted by the Investigating Officer, then this Court sent a letter to the SHO, Raniya Road, Sirsa (Haryana) to send some particulars about the accused petitioner including his occupation members in his family, permanent abode, property etc. in his name, the general reputation and any other information whatever could be collected. A report was received from SHO Raniya Road giving him a clearance. His address was correct. He had some property in Sirsa and has was of good conduct and no court case was pending. It was in these circumstances that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, he was granted bail in this case. THE Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer had been given ample opportunity to place before the Court the material about the back ground of this non-petitioner, but they failed to do so, then at this stage when the non-petitioner has not misused the liberty, it cannot said that the bail already granted should be cancelled, on the ground that there is material to show that this accused is related to the ccaccused Kashmiri Lal. In the circumstances, this application for cancellation of bail cannot be allowed and the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.