:/ a. .S stfi o lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM ORDEF! SHEET Crl, Rev, P. THUKCHUK IACHUNC;PA Versus arjHE OF slKKIM ............... No. 4 of 2oo8 Petitioner / Appel[ant F`espondent Order with Signature 1. Present: Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Mr. K.T. Bhutia, Mr. B.R. Pradhan and Mr. S.S. Hamal, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application for revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok on the 18th of Augilst, 2008. The said order is an order of cancellation of bail for violation of a condition of grant of bail. The order itself is a reasoned one running into several pages and the facts are all set out there. Basically a case was started against the contractor, who is the accused and also the petit:ioner before this Court today, on account of a bridge collapse which took place at Ranipool on 29th May, 2008. € 2 .# SeriaNo.ofOrderI DateOfd`Order Order with Signature,, Office Note as toaction(ifany)takenonOrder The accused is both a contractor under _-- - whom the constrilct:ion was going on and a former minister of the State. Bail was granted from the very beginning and the conditions were varied and also new conditions were imposed from time to time. The accused needed some med ical treatment, since, on day of the collapse, he was himself injured, but the main reason the case has been filed against him is that four labourers died. The accused had been allowed by an appropriate order to travel to Delhi for treatment and was then asked by another order not to enter Sikkim thereafter without Se-rmission. But even that condition was relaxed, and the only important condition which remained was that he should not visit the site where the incident had occurred. This is the exact condition which he violated on t:he most important day. The most important day was 25th July, 2008. It was the most important day because a Committee constituted by the t:opmos administ:rat:ion of the Sta.te, i.e., the Governo himself, was visiting the site with the suspended departmental engineers to make a report. 3 ' serial Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of'l action (if any) Order order taken on Order Ii\i---= Ii)Ili'1II A copy of the letter dated 23rd July, 2oo8 `- fixing the inspection was given to the accused for information. The accused chose not to remain content with merely being informed, but went to the site on the day of inspection itself. ~=_. ---_ He participated fully apparently making >r---___-__---I- statements also to the investigating committee. On the 30th July, 2008 cancellation of bail was applied for by the State. I)i11IIIi)i`,I I There is a letter dated 31St July, 2008, written to the accused, the day after the cancellation of the bail was applied for, (which is issued by the same person who wrot:e the earlier Iett:er dated 23rd July, 2008 fixing the date 25th July, 2008), giving a wrong st:atement that the accused was asked to be present on the site. Why this letter should be writ:ten by the Additional Secretary on 31St July, 2008 to the accused himself, or why it should be flatly contradictory to his earlier letter of 23rd July, 2008 and also the bail condition, we do not know. 11 _ -r_ It is clear however, that the Court below has i>--^rT`mi++arl ahc^-I i a`/-` n ' ril`flarih/_-`/an/~ i=_i--_i-' I ' ' _ _ _ _ - - - important dition Qf the bail was violated on a iii-a Serial Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order very important day. If bail is not cancelled even Ii::``!:`.:!!.j`!:..`..:-.``.;u``... thereafter then the condition might not have I:±p^ft{AJ4Ois` imposed at all in the very first place. There being no apparent injustice or irregularity which needs immediat:e or any correction by this Court, the application is rejected. ( A. N. Ray, C.J. ) 19-08-2008