ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS revision is filed by the complainant against the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Kathua on 18th May, 1998. By means of this order respondents No.1 to 4 were admitted to interim bail by the court below during pendency of the trial before it.
(2.) WITH a view to properly understand and appreciate respective submissions urged during the course of hearing few facts need to be noted. Respondents are facing trial under sections 302, 341 read with section 34 RPC. This case is pending trial in the court of learned Session Judge, Kathua. Parties were not at variance with respondents No.1 to 3 were committed on 30/3/94, whereas against respondent No.4 Ghami proceedings under section 512 Cr. P. C. were initiated. Respondents No.1 to 3 were charge sheeted on 4/7/94 under section 302 read with sections 34/341 RPC and case was fixed for prosecution evidence from 21 / 9/94 to 24/9/94. It appears that on 23/9/94 respondent No.4 was produced. Thereafter on 28/9/94 he was also charge sheeted. Since this date case has been going on for recording prosecution evidence.
(3.) IMPUGNED order further indicates that there are 20 witnesses named in the challan by the prosecution. Till passing of the order granting bail on 18/5/98 11 witnesses had been examined. So much so even brother of the deceased had not been examined till that date. In this background it is clear that respondents No.1 to 3 were in judicial lock up for about 4 years whereas respondents No.4 was in judicial lock up for about 3 years. This is one aspect of the case. Other aspect of the case is that whether any case for cancellation of bail has been made out or not by the complainant especially when State has not filed any revision. In this regard it may be worthwhile to notice that after the case has been made out, court is not powerless to order cancellation of the bail granted to the accused like respondents No. 1 to 4. Some of the illustrative grounds are that: - a) accused after having been admitted to bail are either threatening or terrorising prosecution witnesses from giving evidence in the court. b) they are hampering progress of the prosecution case resulting in delay in the conclusion of the trial. c) there is apprehension of either accused persons fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court or committing criminal offence again. There is nothing that could be pointed out by Shri Gandhi learned counsel appearing for cancellation of the bail. Rather the thrust of submission urged on behalf of the complainant was that evidence recorded clearly shows the involvement of the respondents No.1 to 4 in the commission of offences for which they had been charged. Though this position was seriously contested by Shri Adarsh Sharma learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. He further urged that trial of the case is being protracted by prosecution to ensure that under the guise of pendency of the case, respondents No.1 to 4. He further urged that trial of the case is being protracted by prosecution to ensure that under the guise of pendency of the case, respondents No.1 to 4 should be made to languish in jail.;