MANI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. IDAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second application by Mani Ram for cancellation of bail granted to Idan and Ram Pratap, non-petitioners, by this Court on 2-7-1975, in a criminal case under sections 302 and 302/149, IPC, in exercise of its powers under S. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The previous application for cancellation of bail filed by the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 5-9-1975 on the ground that the allegations made against Idan and Ram Pratap, non-petitioners, regarding the commission of acts of violence in revenge against the prosecution witnesses were not supported by properly verified affidavits of Chandu and Mani Ram. The grounds, on which cancellation of bail of the non-petitioners has been sought, are as follows

(2.) Notice of this application was given to the non-petitioners and the State of Rajasthan. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners and hostel contested the application for cancellation of bail. Mr. H. N. Calla representing the State supported the move for cancellation of bail, while Mr. Bhim Raj, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, counsel for the non-petitioners raised a preliminary objection that this application for cancellation of bail made by a private party should not be entertained, because no prayer has been made on behalf of the State for cancellation of bail granted to the non-petitioners by this Court 011 2-7-1975. In support of his above contention, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad relied upon an authority of this Court Multan Mai Vs. Parbat Singh, 1951 R.L.W. 178 wherein his Lordship Bapna J. was pleased to observe that in the absence of any application for cancellation of bail from the side of the State in criminal cases, in which the State is the prosecutor, the private complainant had no locus standi to present such an application and that the contention of the learned Government Advocate that his verbal support to an application for cancellation of bail filed by a private party without instructions of the government, may be taken as a move by the Government for cancellation of bail, is untenable. Mr. Bhim Raj for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the power under S. 439, Cr. P. C. can be exercised by the High Court suo-moto and that all that the petitioner in this case has done is to draw the court's attention to the violent acts committed by the non petitioners after being enlarged on bail in revenge against the complainant and his party which disentitles them to remain on bail in the murder case. In this connection, Mr. Bhim Raj referred me to an authority of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Ranjit Singh Vs. Nand Lal, 1975 Criminal Law Journal (81) 1416 , wherein it was held that there is no bar that a private complainant cannot file an application for cancellation of bail under S. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.