Case: BHIM SINGH Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant was charged for commission of an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC in FIR No.599 dated 25th September, 2015. Pursuant thereto, the appellant approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 but that was not granted. However, the appellant was directed to surrender and thereafter he surrendered. The appellant remained in jail for about 14 days. The appellant had been granted bail under section 439 CrPC, 1973 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 27th June, 2016. Immediately thereafter a complaint was made by complainant-Radhey Shyam to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat on 29th June, 2016 against the appellant Bhim Singh of giving threats to withdraw the case otherwise he would be killed. Similar complaint was alleged to have been made on 27th July, 2016. 4. The police has not registered a case on the basis of the complaints. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 13th December, 2016 has rejected the application moved for cancellation of bail by the respondent-Radhey Shyam. However, the High Court by the impugned order dated 5th July, 2017 has cancelled the bail that was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat under section 439 CrPC, 1973. 5. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that from the kind of complaints which were filed immediately on grant of bail does not inspire confidence, there was no sufficient ground for cancellation of bail at this stage. Thus, we are satisfied that the order of the Sessions Court was appropriate. The High Court has taken the decision taking into consideration the merits of the case antecedents etc. 6. The High Court has also observed that in spite of opportunity given to the accused to return the money he has not returned it. The aforesaid aspect, in our opinion, could not be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]5. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that from the kind of complaints which were filed immediately on grant of bail does not inspire confidence, there was no sufficient ground for cancellation of bail at this stage. Thus, we are satisfied that the order of the Sessions Court was appropriate. The High Court has taken the decision taking into consideration the merits of the case antecedents etc.6. The High Court has also observed that in spite of opportunity given to the accused to return the money he has not returned it. The aforesaid aspect, in our opinion, could not be a ground for cancellation of bail.