KUNJA BIHARI CHANDRA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition on behalf of one Kunja Bihari Chandra, who has got a title of Rai Sahib but has been accused in a case along with others under Secs.302, 147, 302-149 and 302-109, Indian Penal Code. The occurrence is said to have taken place oh 8 June 1941, in village Bhaturdih at about 6-30 A.M. while the complainant and his party were ploughing a field. So far as the petitioner is concerned there is not touch interest as to What he did on the date of occurrence or on the field where the occurrence is said to have taken place. The part assigned to him appears to be that he called together the men and instigated them to go to plough the field and to beat off the party that opposed them. On the date of occurrence, two people are said to have received fatal injuries. One of them gave a dying declaration but the other did not. In this case the inquiry previous to commitment has not yet been started. The Courts below in refusing bail to the petitioner, evidently, have relied upon a confession of an accused, Imam Ali, and upon a statement made under Section 164, Criminal P.C., in which the petitioner is said to have advised the party to avoid the route which passed by the side of the thana.

(2.) THE petition has now been opposed by the learned Assistant Government Advocate, who has taken me through the various materials on the record to show that this is not a fit case in which bail should be granted. It is said that there is a danger that the witnesses will be tampered with and that the petitioner may manufacture evidence in support of his defence. A petition filed by the petitioner before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 7 August 1941 has been shown to me. THE defence taken in the petition is that the petitioner was not at his house, where he is alleged to have instigated the other accused, at the time and place mentioned by the prosecution. THE facts alleged, if true, are certainly serious; but the question is whether the materials on the record are such as make out that the petitioner is not a fit person to be released on bail. As a matter of fact, he is on bail by reason of the order of this Court, dated 29 July 1941, and till today (20th August 1941) it does not appear that anything untoward has happened in the prosecution of the case by enlarging him on bail. THE only step taken by him is that he has filed the petition dated 7 August setting up an alibi in defence. This is not such a conduct on the part of an accused as would make it necessary to cancel his bail bond. It is a question still to be investigated how far the petitioner is responsible for the unhappy incidents that took place in the field on the date of occurrence. Another line of argument advanced on behalf of the prosecution is that after the arrest of the petitioner on 23 June 1941, valuable pieces of evidence have become available. This would mean one of two things; either that the accused's influence is such that valuable evidence is suppressed, or that evidence, which may be regarded valuable, could not be created so long as the accused was on the alert. What impresses me most, however, at this stage is that although the petitioner has been out on bail since 23 July 1941, nothing untoward has happened to the prosecution of the case. I see no reason to cancel his bail bond. I allow this application. THE petitioner will continue to be on bail till the trial has ended. It would be open to the Crown to move for cancellation of the bail if fresh materials calling for such an order become available.