SITA RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by two petitioners Sitaram Singh and his son Ranjit Singh, who are named accused in Madhepur (Luknour) PS Case No. 178/2000 giving rise to GR Case No. 710/2000 pending before the AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jhanjharpur. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.1.2001 passed by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case whereby the bail granted to petitioners by order dated 1.9.2000 has been cancelled by the same Magistrate on two grounds.

(2.) According to petitioners, the cancellation of their bail is illegal, improper and unjust because the first ground, that is, subsequent death of the injured and addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is impermissible in law for cancellation of bail and the other ground, i.e. threatening of witnesses has been accepted without any inquiry and verification.

(3.) Because the matter involved cancellation of bail already granted to the petitioners, hence the matter was heard in details at the admission stage itself. So far as the second ground mentioned in the impugned order to the effect that the accused persons are tampering with evidence, is concerned, there is no controversy that on such a ground, if properly inquired and established, the bail already granted can be cancelled. But on facts there is no difficulty in holding that allegation to this effect has not been inquired properly and learned Magistrate erred in using this as an additional ground for cancellation of petitioners bail. It was rightly pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that in Annexure3, a petition filed by the AddI. P.P. dated 15.9.2000 there is no allegation of tampering and cancellation of petitioners bail was sought only on the ground that the injured had died after about a fortnight and in view of Section 302 of the IPC being attracted, the bail earlier granted in a case then under Section 307, IPC should be cancelled for the ends of justice. No doubt, in a petition for cancellation of bail filed by the informant on 11.9.2000 as contained in Annexure-4, the allegation of threatening of prosecution witnesses was mentioned in paragraph 10 in a general manner without specific particulars but in another petition by the informat dated 14.9.2000 as contained in Annexure-5, some grievance was raised against the police but there was no allegation of tampering. By the order dated 15.9.2000 which is part of Annexure-2, notice was issued to the accused persons as to why their bail be not cancelled and in that order also nothing was mentioned about tampering and the only ground considered for issuance of notice was the fact that subsequently Section 302 of the IPC has been added in the case. It is also not in dispute that with regard to subsequent allegation of threat etc. no inquiry was held and there is no report by the police to support, the allegation of tampering. In such circumstances, it has to be held that petitioners bail should not have been cancelled on the ground of tampering and to that extent the impugned order is unjust and bad in law.