In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-32652 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:4.2.2010 Kulwant Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Satnam Singh son of Mahain Singh (respondent No.2) was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) in the case registered against him on 11.5.2006 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). The cancellation of the said bail granted to Satnam Singh son of Mahain Singh (respondent No.2) is sought on the ground that he has misused the concession of bail. It may be noticed that PHC Joginder Singh has lodged FIR No.138 dated 8.9.2008 (Annexure-P.2) for the offences under Sections 222, Cr. Misc. No.M-32652 of 2009 [2] 223, 224 and 120-B IPC. It is alleged by him that he is posted on duty in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur as Naib Court. On 8.9.2008, he was on duty. Case FIR No.68 of 2006 (in which respondent No.2 has been granted the concession of bail) was fixed for hearing in the Court of Smt. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Accused Hari Singh son of Mahain Singh, Jagdeep Singh son of Hari Singh, Satnam Singh alias Satta son of Suba Singh (the person who has escaped) had come from Jail with guards, namely, Gulzar Singh 1893, Manoj Kumar 518, Gurpartap Singh 269. Constable Gulzar Singh 1893 had handcuffed Satnam Singh alias Satta for safety. In the said case accused Satnam Singh son of Mahain Singh (respondent No.2), Balbir Singh son of Banta Singh, Bali Singh son of Mahain Singh, Tota Singh son of Amrik Singh had been released on bail by the Court and were on bail. They had also come to the Court for appearance. At about 12.30 p.m., the case titled Hari Singh v. State was called by the Court. The accused, who had come from the jail and the accused who were on bail, gathered in front of the door of the Court. Gulzar Singh Constable was to take Satnam Singh alias Satta to produce him in Court after unlocking his handcuffs. The accused on bail created a rush to move inside. In the meantime, Satnam Singh alias Satta instead of going inside the Court by playing a trick on the officials succeeded in running away from the door of the Court. Rest of the accused went inside to attend the hearing of the case. However, guard officials and other employees standing in the Court tried to catch hold of Satnam Singh alias Satta but he could not be caught. The remaining accused came out after adjournment had been granted. The guards, namely, Gulzar Singh Cr. Misc. No.M-32652 of 2009 [3] 1893, Manoj Kumar 518 and Gurpratap Singh 269 had while doing their duty, it is alleged, negligently made the accused Satnam Singh alias Satta run away. However, the conspiracy had been with the common intention of the accused on bail, namely, Satnam Singh son of Mahain Singh (respondent No.2), Balbir Singh, Banta Singh, Bali Singh and they had made Satnam Singh alias Satta to run away. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail, inasmuch as, he along with other co-accused on bail enabled Satnam Singh alias Satta to abscond. It is submitted that the bail granted to Balbir Singh son of Banta Singh has been cancelled by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-P.4) passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-11149 of 2009. Besides, it is submitted that bail granted to Sarup Singh and Bali Singh has also been cancelled in Criminal Misc. No.M-32565 of 2009 vide order passed today i.e. 4.2.2010 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the bail of respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was a complete conspiracy between the co-accused to enable Satnam Singh alias Satta to run away and, therefore, it would be just and expedient if the bail granted to respondent No.2 is cancelled as he has misused the concession of bail. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has, however, vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the bail granted to respondent No.2 is not liable to be cancelled. In fact, it is on account of the negligence of the guards that Satnam Singh alias Satta had managed to Cr. Misc. No.M-32652 of 2009 [4] run away. It is also submitted that the allegations of conspiracy have been made just for the sake of making and to involve others, otherwise there was nothing on record to establish the same. Besides, it is submitted that bail of Balbir Singh son of Banta Singh was cancelled vide order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-P.4) as no one appeared to oppose the application seeking cancellation of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that in the FIR No.138 dated 8.9.2008 (Annexure-P.2) there are clear allegations of the Naib Court Joginder Singh that the accused, who were on bail and had come to Court for appearance in the case titled Hari Singh v. State of Punjab and while they were entering the Court they created a rush to move inside which enabled Satnam Singh alias Satta, whose handcuffs were taken-off, for his appearance in Court to escape. The name of respondent No.2 is specifically mentioned in the FIR (Annexure-P.2) lodged by Naib Court Joginder Singh. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-P.4) passed in the case of Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab and another, Cr. Misc. No.M-11149 of 2009, cancelled the bail granted to Balbir Singh son of Banta Singh. It was inter alia observed that the matter would not have been serious enough to cancel the bail had Satnam Singh been arrested after his escape. It is not in dispute that Satnam Singh alias Satta had not been arrested till date. Apart from Balbir Singh, the bails granted to Bali Singh and Sarup Singh alias Tota Singh who are co-accused with respondent No.2 have also been cancelled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court today. The concession of bail which was granted to respondent No.2 has been misused by interfering in the due course of justice and enabling a Cr. Misc. No.M-32652 of 2009 [5] co-accused to escape. Accordingly, the bail granted to Satnam Singh son of Mahain Singh (respondent No.2) is liable to be cancelled. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.12.2007 (Annexure-P.1) in case FIR No.68 dated 11.5.2006 registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur is hereby cancelled. The respondent No.2 shall be taken in custody. February 4, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*