(1.) - This is an application under Sec. 439 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail order passed on 9. 08. 1991 in S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2535/1991.
(2.) ACCUSED-non-applicant Matadeen son of Jassu Singh applied for his bail under sec. 439, Cr. PC. in Session Case No. 18/1991, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana for offences under Secs. 302, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 364, IPC. When this bail application No. 2535/1991 came up before the Court, an order was passed on 9. 08. 1991, which shows that the Court was given an impression that the case of Matadeen was not different than that of the other two co-accused persons, namely Chhagan Singh and Shivpal Singh who had been granted bail on 8. 08. 1991.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 consider it proper and lawful to cancel the order dated 9. 08. 1991, by which bail was granted to Matadeen, for the following reasons : -. (a) The bail order dated 9. 08. 1991 in favour of Matadeen was obtained by giving an incorrect impression to the Court that his case was in no way different than that of Shivpal Singh and Chhagan Singh, who had been granted bail by the other Bench on 8. 08. 1991. (b) I am of the considered opinion that the case of Matadeen is not at par with that of Shivpal Singh and Chhagan Singh inasmuch as the fatal head injury appears to have been inflicted by Matadeen. (c) The case of the present petitioner Ram Chandra Singh that Matadeen after his release had gone to the village and has made efforts to persue Ram Chandra Singh to take compensation and not to persue the case and, this persuasion was also coupled with the threat that otherwise he would be done to death and that Matadeen has been misusing the liberty granted to him, has not been controverted by Matadeen, although a notice of this application for cancellation of bail had been duly served upon Matadeen. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the present petitioner against Matadeen on this aspect of the matter.