M.L.SINGHAL,J - (1.) THROUGH this Crl. Misc. Petition filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., Harpreet Singh has prayed for the cancellation of bail granted to Dharam Singh respondent No. 1 by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 3.1.2001 in case FIR No. 25 dated 5.4.2000 registered under Sections 148/307/324/323/353/332/186/427/506/149 IPC. Facts :
(2.) ON 5.4.2000, Harpreet Singh along with his father Amrik Singh of village Baddon went to attend marriage in their relation in the house of Gurmukh Singh in village Dasian. At about 11 A.M., a telephonic message was received in village Radian from his aunt that his uncle Dharam Singh along with some other persons was demolishing his residential house. Thereupon, Harpreet Singh and his father Amrik Singh reached village Baddon by jeep No. PC-503. When they were near their house at about 11.30 A.M. Dharam Singh and his companions dragged Amrik Singh from that jeep and took him in a street in front of the house. Dharam Singh gave kirpan blow on the head of Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh fell in the street. Kulwaran Singh, Harwinder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Jhujar Singh also give kirpan blows on the head of Amrik Singh. Rest of the accused gave him dang blows. Harpreet Singh, Comrade Gulzar Singh, his bua Surjit Kaur and her daughter Balbir Kaur went forward to save Amrik Singh. Dharam Singh gave kirpan blow on the left hand of Harpreet Singh. Hardip Singh son of Jora Singh gave hockey blow on the right hand of Harpreet Singh. Harpreet Singh fell down. When he was lying fallen, Jindi, Kulwaran Singh, Sewa Singh gave him dang blows on his head and the other parts of his body. In the meantime, constable Gurdev Singh of police post Ajnoha along with other police officials reached there. They tried to save them from this onslaught. Dharam Singh gave kirpan blow on the left arm of Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh received some more injuries also. Ranbir Singh armed with gun came there and threatened to kill and on their raising Raula, Dharam Singh etc. ran away with their respective weapons along with 15-20 persons who were muffled faced. Jeep was also damaged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have granted bail to Dharam Singh particularly when the attribution to him is that he gave kirpan blow on the head of Amrik Singh and not only he, co-accused Kulwaran Singh, Harwinder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Jhujar Singh while armed with kripans gave injuries to Amrik Singh on his head. It was submitted that Amrik Singh was taken to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana in a serious condition. He was operated upon for his head injury. He was diagnosed as a case of head injuries (Depressed Fracture Right Fronto-parietal Occipital Bone with Underlying Extra Dural Haematoma, Sub Dural Haematoma and Intra Cranial Haematoma). He was operated upon for head injury under general anesthesia. Operation that was carried out on him was right temporoparietal craniotomy excision of depressed with evacuation of underlying Extra Dural Haematoma with drainage of right temporal subdural haemorrhage. It was submitted that he remained hospitalised for a number of days. It was submitted that not only Amrik Singh was injured but also Harpreet Singh by Dharam Singh who gave kirpan blow on his left hand whereas Hardip Singh gave him hockey blow on his right hand and when he was lying fallen, Jindi, Kulwaran Singh, Sewa Singh gave him dang blows on his head and the other parts of his body. It was submitted that Harpreet Singh was also admitted to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana where compound fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th metacarpal left with closed fracture middle phalanx. It was submitted that Amrik Singh had to follow up treatment. It was submitted that Dharam Singh was released on bail after 9 days of detention when the injured were still not free from the impact of these injuries. It was submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge should have struck a balance between liberty of Extra Dural Haematoma and Attribution to him. Amrik Singh was saved from the impact of injuries which was dangerous to life because of the timely medical aid given to him at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. It was submitted that age of Extra Dural Haematoma was taken into account by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but not the age of Amrik Singh injured. Amrik Singh was also 56 years old.
(3.) IT was submitted that the bail allowed to an accused can always be cancelled if it is shown to have been allowed on irrelevant or untenable considerations. Learned counsel for Dharam Singh respondent No. 1 submitted that bail once allowed cannot be cancelled as cancellation of bail is governed by different considerations while the grant of bail is governed by different considerations. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary to cancel the bail already allowed. If the order granting bail is not perverse and unreasonable, bail should not be cancelled. In Shehjad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another, AIR 1987 SC 1613, it was held that no doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the court nonetheless when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder and his successive bail applications rejected on merit there being prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the court. Liberty is to be secured through process of law which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the society so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by the concept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case.;