ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) THE present recall application dated 18.04.2010 for recall of the order dated 24.02.2010 passed by this Court, has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. By this aforesaid order, the bail allowed by the Sessions Judge was cancelled.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the order dated 24.02.2010 cancelling the bail allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, is liable to be recalled on following grounds:- (i) That according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the bail cancellation application has to be heard by the same Judge. He relied upon para 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2004(1) JCC 286 (Mehboob Dawood Sahikh V. State of Maharastra), which is quoted hereinbelow: "The other aspect which was emphasized with some amount of vehemence was that the learned Single Judge who had granted bail should have heard the application for cancellation of bail. Observations made in Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2001 (1) SCC 549) was relied upon for that purposes. As noted above, in the said judgment there is a long standing convention and requirement of judicial discipline wich has held the field for a long period that subsequent application for grant or cancellation of bail application should be placed before the same learned Judge who had passed the earlier order. This certainly is a desirable course. But at the same time the party who makes a grievance that the course has not been followed has to indicate as to in what manner he was in prejudice arises only when on the same set of facts, a different order is passed by another leaned Judge cancelling the bail or granting the bail as the case may be. But where the cancellation is sought for on grounds different from those which existed at the time of granting bail, the conventional practice of placing the matter before the same learned Single Judge need not be followed as if it is a statutory requirement. It does not appear from the order of the High Court that any submission was made before the learned Single Judge who passed the earlier order. In any event, in the case at hand, the cancellation has been done on a ground other than those which weighed with learned Single Judge for grant of bail. Though initially the application for cancellation of bail was founded on the alleged misrepresentation or suppression of facts, but what weighted with the learned Single Judge who dealt with the application for cancellation of bail was the conduct of the accused in the threatening the witnesses. That being so, the judgment in Harjeet Singh's case (Supra) does not in any assist the appellant. There is no such thing as a judicial precedent on facts though counsel, and even Judges, are sometimes prone to argue and to act as if they were said Bose J. about half century back in willie (William) Slaney v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh, 1955 (2) SCR 1140 at page 1159). A decision is available as a precedent only if decides a question of law. A judgment should be understood in the light of facts of that case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete law decided by this Court. The judgement must be read as a whole and the observations in the light of the questions which were before this Court. (See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992 (4) SCC 363)." He further contended that in view of the Supreme Court Judgment, the bail cancellation should have been heard by the same Judge, who granted bail. In the present case, the bail application was allowed by the Sessions Judge. Hence, High Court has no power to cancel the bail. (ii) The second argument advanced on behalf of applicant is that if two views are possible then the view which is lenient and is in favour of accused must be accepted. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008 XII AD (S.C.) 536 (Sami Ullaha V. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau). and (iii) The third argument advanced on behalf of applicant is that there was no allegation that the opposite partyNos. 2 and 3 misused the liberty of bail and there was no material to show regarding misuse of bail. Hence, in view of the aforesaid ground, the order dated 24.2.2010 for cancellation of the bail is liable to be recalled and the bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected or the same might be remanded to the same learned Sessions Judge who has considered the bail application and allowed the same.
(3.) THE aforesaid contention was opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant.;