MAIBAM BIDHU SINGH AND ORS. Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION
LAWS(GAU)-1958-8-3
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 21,1958

Maibam Bidhu Singh And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Manipur Administration Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANT RAM VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J.N. Datta, J.C. - (1.)THE three petitioners are standing trial before the Sessions Judge, the first on a charge under Section 302 I. P. C, and the other two under Section 302 read with Section 109 I. P. C.
(2.)THEY were on bail in the Committing Court, which committed the case to the Court of Session, charging the petitioners under Section 304 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge fixed 4 -8 -58 as the date for the commencement of the trial before him. On that date he altered the charges as already indicated above, and one P. W. was examined. He was declared hostile and the prosecution was allowed to cross -examine him, which went on till the next day. The deposition of this witness before the Committing Court was also transferred under Section 288 of the Cr. P.C. Another P. W. was also examined, on that day (5 -8 -58) but his cross -examination was not over The learned Public Prosecutor, then filed an application for the cancellation of the bail of the three petitioners on the ground that they are influential persons and have already gained over some of the P. Ws. and if they are allowed to remain on bail, they will further tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners were likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses was not without foundation, since it had come out in the evidence adduced till then, that the petitioners are Influential persons, and the villagers are afraid to give evidence against them. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cancelled the bail and committed the petitioners to custody.

(3.)THE order of the learned Sessions Judge was attacked on the ground, that it was based, on vague allegations, and he was not entitled to cancel bail, without there being evidence to show that the petitioners were tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The learned Counsel went to the length of urging that the learned Sessions Judge could not Pass that order without taking evidence, that is, examining witnesses on the point. Reliance was placed on two cases reported in Sant Ram v. State, AIR 1952 J & K 28 and Emperor v. Abhairaj Kunwar .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.