1 S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 08/2008 (Ramu Ram Vs. Soni Devi) Date of order : 10.04.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. G.R.Punia for the petitioner. By the instant application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the injured petitioner Ramu Ram seeks cancellation of bail granted to accused respondent by this Court vide order dated 20.2.2008 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.758/2008. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order dated 20.2.2008 as also challan papers. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the respondent was not only a passenger of the jeep but she was an assailant also as she was armed with lathi and caused injury to the deceased and other injured persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the FIR and statements of witnesses who alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner himself is an injured person alleged to have suffered single injury by blunt object which is simple in nature. The other injured is Noparam who alleged to 2 have suffered one injury i.e. lacerated wound on right leg as also he has complained pain on left leg as well and injury is by blunt object. The other injured is Purnaram who has not suffered any external injury but only complained of pain in left elbow. The fourth injured is Prabhuram. As per injury report dated 9.11.2007 which was prepared at 7.15 AM, injured Prabhuram has suffered four injuries all abrasions. The injuries suffered by injured Prabhuram as per the injury report are as under :- 1. Abrasion 4cmx2cm on inner side of left knee 2. Abrasion multiple on left thigh & left gluteal region and left iliac creast (10cm x 8 cm area) 3. Abrasion multiple on front of right thigh (8cmx6cm area) 4. Abrasion on left renal part 4cmx2cm. From the statements of the witnesses, it appears that one Hanutaram co-accused was driving the jeep, he hit the deceased, caused the injuries and according to statements of witnesses, Hanutaram ran over the jeep on the injured causing injuries to him. Though it is alleged that the other persons who were armed with lathies named in the statements of witnesses also inflicted the injuries to the deceased, but it is not clear that which of the injuries has been assigned to present respondent. Even otherwise, all the injuries suffered by Prabhuram as per injury report appear to be abrasions. However, subsequently, he 3 died and his postmortem was conducted and in the opinion of the doctor conducting the postmortem, the cause of death was extensive head injuries and injuries mentioned in the postmortem report appear to be nine in number though originally when the injury report was prepared there were only four injuries and all the four were abrasions. Be that as it may, the eye witness Nopa Ram in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that co-accused Hanuta Ram came driving jeep and in order to cause death of Prabhu Ram, hit him by the jeep and was run over by the said jeep and therefore, prima-facie injuries have been caused by hitting jeep/ running over jeep and any other injuries if suffered have not been specifically assigned to the respondent No.2. Even otherwise, there is no allegation that the respondent No.2 after having been released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. misused the liberty of bail or threatened the prosecution witnesses or made any attempt to tamper with the evidence. In Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1 i.e. Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated certain conditions for cancellation of bail which are:- (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing 4 to another country (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigation agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. None of the conditions enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) exists in the instant case warranting cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent. In the circumstances, therefore, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. The application seeking cancellation of bail is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp