IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25386 of 2007 ANIL RAI, SON OF JAMUN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ALIPUR, BHADWASH, POLICE STATION-MAHUA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI…………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. --------- O R D E R The petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Mahua P.S. Case No.64 of 2003, G.R. No.758 of 2003, is aggrieved by and has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 11.2.2004 passed therein by Sri Komal Ram, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby he has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner as chargesheet had been submitted under Section 307 I.P.C. against him. Mahua P.S. Case No.64 of 2003 was initially registered under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 504 and 379/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the fardbeyan given by one Arvind Kumar to the A.S.I. of Mahua P.S. on 20.3.2003 at 12 noon at Mahua Hospital and was in respect of an occurrence which took place earlier that day at 9.30 A.M. The prosecution case is that while the informant was taking his meals at his door, the accused persons came there and asked him as to who had taken out the tape from their jeep and when the informant replied that - 2 - he had not taken out the same, they started abusing him in filthy language and when he objected to the same, accused Jitendra Rai gave orders to his brothers who caught hold of his collar and started dragging him in course whereof the petitioner herein dealt a farsa blow on his head causing bleeding injuries. This was followed by a lathi blow by accused Raju Rai on the informant’s right hand resulting in its fracture and Jaichand Rai assaulted him with fists and also took away Rs.3000/- from his pocket and a Titan watch from his hand. In view of the offences whereunder the case was registered the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur on 24.5.2003 but after investigation the police submitted a chargesheet on amongst other Sections also under Section 307 I.P.C. and having taken cognizance the case was transferred to the court of Sri Komal Ram for commitment. The transferee court in view of the cognizance having been taken under Section 307 I.P.C. and other allied Sections of the Penal Code re- heard the matter of bail and cancelled the bail bond of all the accused including the petitioner vide order dated 11.2.2004. Aggrieved thereby they moved the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No.53 of 2004 and Sri Vijay Bahadur Mall, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Vaishali at Hajipur by his order dated 5.9.2006 with reference to a decision of this Court reported in 2002(1) PLJR 693 directed the petitioner to surrender in the court below within a week of the receipt of the order and file a fresh bail petition before the lower court and on such filing of petition the court below was directed - 3 - to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on merit. Instead of complying with the orders passed by the Revisional Court the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on the decision of Raj Kumari Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2003(1) BBCJ 274, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bail is a liberty and its cancellation means snatching that liberty. He further submitted that in that decision it was observed that cancellation could have only been ordered if there was a police report or a petition filed by the witnesses stating therein that the witnesses are being tampered or threatened or there was likelihood of the petitioner fleeing away but none of those grounds had been placed before the court at the time of cancellation of bail and as such the Judge in that case quashed the order cancelling the bail and allowed the application. There is an earlier decision of this Court reported in the case of Sita Ram Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 693 wherein it was held after placing reliance on the cases of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State (AIR 1978 SC 179) and Delhi Administration Vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 SC 961) that misuse by absconding or by tampering are the most well accepted grounds for cancellation of bail but these grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. It was further pointed out on the basis of the aforesaid judgments that no doubt in the matter of cancellation of bail the courts are required to act with care and circumspection but for good reasons cancellation of - 4 - bail can be justified on other grounds also. The said Bench relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT Delhi reported in 2001(3) PLJR 205 (SC) wherein it was observed as hereunder: “…………… With the change of the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty granted to him in relation to a minor offence, if the offence is altered for an aggravated crime. Instead of referring to the grounds which entitled the respondent-accused the grant of bail, the Magistrate adopted a wrong approach to confer him the benefit of liberty on allegedly finding that no grounds were made out for cancellation of bail.” The decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above as also of this Court in Sita Ram Singh’s case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Court deciding the case of Raj Kumari Devi (supra). In view of the discussions made above, I am unable to accept the view expressed in Raj Kumari Devi’s case (supra). Accordingly, this application is dismissed as being without merit. It is unfortunate that notwithstanding the orders dated 5.9.2006 passed by the revisional court the petitioner did not surrender in the court below. He is now directed to obey the direction given by the revisional court, surrender in the magisterial court by 17th of November, 2008 and file a fresh petition for bail before that court for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate after hearing the prosecution as also the defence will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the decisions of the - 5 - Apex Court, referred to above as also the case of Sita Ram Singh (supra). (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 24th of October, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.