IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-19828 of 2011 Date of decision : December 2, 2011 Baldev Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. A.K. Sama, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Jetinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. The Crl. Misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner Baldev Singh under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking cancellation of bail granted to Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2011 (Annexure P2). Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2011 (Annexure P2). It is alleged that after his release on bail, he created terror against the witnesses of case FIR No.114 dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Ferozepur for the offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). It is alleged that Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) caused injuries to Kuldeep Singh who is the brother of Baldev Singh (petitioner) as he was a witness in the said case (Annexure CRM No. M-19828 of 2011 [2] P1) under Section 302/34 IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail of Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that FIR No.46 dated 24.5.2011 (Annexure P3) has been registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Ferozepur against respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC in respect of the incident that occurred on 11.5.2011. The said FIR (Annexure P3), it is submitted, is a delayed FIR by 13 days and has been got recorded only to falsely implicate Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2). In any case, it is submitted that the statements of Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh (petitioner) who are witnesses in the case (Annexure P1) under Section 302/34 IPC were recorded in the trial Court on 21.7.2010. At that time, Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) was in custody. He was granted bail by this Court on 23.3.2011 (Annexure P2). Therefore, at the time of the incident on 11.5.2011 and the registration of FIR (Annexure P3) on 24.5.2011, Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) could not have influenced Kuldeep Singh as their statements had already been recorded earlier on 21.7.2010. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Baldev Singh (petitioner) is the complainant in FIR No.114 dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Ferozepur for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. It has been alleged by the complainant that his brother Gurdev Singh (deceased) had developed undesirable relations with Seeta Rani. The said Seeta Rani, it is alleged, had embezzled the money of Gurdev Singh (deceased) and had administered some poisonous substance to him. Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) son of Seeta Rani on 14.6.2009 when Seeta Rani is said to have administered some poisonous CRM No. M-19828 of 2011 [3] substance to Gurdev Singh (deceased), had dropped Gurdev Singh in front of his house. At that time Kuldeep Singh, brother of Baldev Singh, complainant (petitioner in the present case) and Gurdev Singh (deceased) had come at the spot. The injuries in respect of the incident that occurred on 11.5.2011 in respect of which FIR No.46 was registered on 24.5.2011 (Annexure P3) it is alleged that Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) had given a ‘kapa’ blow from its reverse side on the head of Kuldeep Singh who was a witness. However, it is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the statements of Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh (petitioner) in case FIR No.114 dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P1) for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC were recorded in the trial Court on 21.7.2010. The incident of Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) causing injuries to Kuldeep Singh had occurred on 11.5.2011. Therefore, it cannot be said at the said stage that Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) had interfered in the trial of the case for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC by influencing the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) in any case is causing terror amongst the witnesses. However, there is no material before this Court to support the said stand and in case the petitioner has any material in this regard, he may seek his remedies of initiating security proceedings in terms of Section 107 CrPC against Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2). In the absence of material regarding causing terror to the witnesses, it would be inexpedient to cancel the bail that was granted to Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) by this Court in terms of order dated 23.3.2011 (Annexure P2). Rejection of bail is on one footing but its cancellation is a harsh order as it takes away liberty of an individual. Therefore, the CRM No. M-19828 of 2011 [4] cancellation of an order granting bail is not to be lightly resorted to. It is only when to whom a bail is granted tries to interfere with the due course of justice or tampers with the evidence or witnesses, or threatens the witnesses or indulges in similar activities which affect the trial that a bail is liable to be cancelled. In the present case, however, the statement of Kuldeep Singh brother of the petitioner, to whom the injuries are said to be caused by Jaswant Singh alias Raju (respondent No.2) had already made his deposition in the Court on 21.7.2010 in the case under Section 302/34 IPC almost ten months earlier to the registration of FIR on 24.5.2011 (Annexure P3). In the circumstances, no ground for cancellation of bail is made. The Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 2, 2011 amit