Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. *** ORDER Crl.Misc.No.52684 of 2010 The present application is for placing on record reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. Crl.Misc.is allowed and reply with the application is placed on record. Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 The present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 2 to 4 by Sessions Judge, Kapurthla vide orders dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P2) and 19.5.2010 (Annexure P3) in case FIR No.47 dated 28.3.3010, registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC and Sections 326/307 IPC which were added later on. Notice of motion was issued on 13.7.2010. Mr.Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is 70 years of age and is a retired army personnel, who was attacked by accused persons with their Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 [2] respective weapons and nine injuries were inflicted on his person. Initially, FIR was registered under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC and Sections 326 and 307 IPC were added later on because of nature of the injuries which were declared grievous and dangerous to life on the basis of report dated 28.3.2010. Mr. Chadha also submits that learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala has failed to appreciate that respondents No. 2 to 4 were the members of an unlawful assembly who were armed with weapons and inflicted as many as nine injuries on the person of the petitioner. There is specific role which has been attributed to respondents No. 2 to 4, still the concession of anticipatory bail has been granted to them. Mr.Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court as it is only the petitioner who had attacked the accused party, it was a case of version and cross-version and it is yet to be ascertained as to which party was more aggressive. Moreover, a penalty of Rs.50,000/- has already been imposed upon the complainant which has been given to the accused persons for damages of crop which clearly shows that the possession of the accused was there on the fields in dispute. It has further been argued by Mr.Vivek Thakur that there was no eye-witness of the incident and all the accused have been implicated in the case, including lady members, who have been shown armed with sticks and caused blows on the person of Sukhdev Singh while he was Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 [3] fallen on the ground. The presence of at least three ladies at the place of occurrence seems to be doubtful. The injury under Section 307 IPC has been attributed to the accused-respondents. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which bail has been granted to respondents No. 2 to 4. Mr.Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner has only raised the argument for cancellation of bail that nine injuries were caused by the accused persons on the person of the petitioner, two injuries were grievous in nature which were declared dangerous to life and because of those injuries Sections 326 and 307 IPC were added. Mr.Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that only simple injuries have been attributed to the accused -respondents and moreover, no specific injury has been attributed to each accused. The grounds for cancellation of bail are totally different from the grounds for granting bail. Bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled only on the ground that specific role has been attributed to the accused because of nine injuries. There is limited scope of interference in the cases where bail is granted. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 600 has held:- Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 [4] “A careful reading of the said observations shows that while considering the factors relevant for consideration of bail already granted vis-a-vis the factors relevant for rejection of bail, this Court pointed out that for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances will be relevant. The said observations were not intended to restrict the power of a superior court to cancel bail in appropriate cases on other grounds. In fact it is now well settled that if a superior court finds that the court granting bail had acted on irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to take note of any statutory bar to grant bail, or if there was manifest impropriety as for example failure to hear the public prosecutor/complainant where required, an order for cancellation of bail can in fact be made.” The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again have observed that an order which is being passed by ignoring material evidence on record is against the principles of law. Some of the observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court is mentioned below in Gursharan Singh V. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179, Generally, speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 [5] to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. However, these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected. Further it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconduct himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. The High Court or the Sessions Court may direct any person released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody.” “State Versus Amarmani Tripathi, AIR 2005, SC 3490” If a bail has been granted illegally or improperly by erroneous and arbitrary exercise of discretion. The same Crl.Misc No M-16310 of 2010 [6] is liable to be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances.” In view of the facts of the present case and the law position as mentioned above, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and no ground is made out to interfere with the orders dated 12.5.2010 and 19.5.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) October 06, 2010 JUDGE raghav