HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU, J. - (1.) THIS order will also dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 3210-M of 1993, State of Haryana v. Inspector Bhagwan Dass.
(2.) ONE Bishambar Dayal, a resident of Bhatsana was involved in a theft case pertaining to F.I.R. No. 195 under Section 379 I.P.C. for committing the theft of electric wire from the tubewell of Public Health Department. He was produced before the police in that case by one Bannie Singh, a resident of Dharuhera and he was interrogated by Magan Singh Assistant Sub Inspector and Bhagwan Dass Inspector, S.H.O. Police Station, Dharuhera, Bishambar sustained some injuries and on 30th October, 1992 a 'new item' appeared in the Tribune that Bishambar Dass a Harijan youth was castrated by the Police while in police custody. The matter was got investigated by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon and Shri Surjit Singh Inspector Welfare reported that Bishambar was kept in illegal custody by the police of Dharuhera from 7.10.1992 to 10.10.1992 and during this period he was tourtured by some police officials. A case was then registered against Magan Singh and Bhagwan Dass respondents under Section 307 I.P.C. and for some other offences. Magan Singh who was arrested on 12.11.1992 applied for his bail and he was released on bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide his order dated 17.11.1992. Bhagwan Dass Inspector was arrested later on and he was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on 30.1.1993. The State of Haryana has filed the present applications under Section 439(2) CrPC praying for cancellation of bail of Magan Singh and Inspector Bhagwan Dass. In the application against Magan Singh it was alleged that he was a police officer and was trying to influence the witnesses, who also belong to the police department. Against Bhagwan Dass it was averred that he was wrongly granted the concession of bail. He made a false report regarding the presence of Bishambar in police station. Being a police officer he could tamper with the evidence and pressurise the witnesses who were to depose against him. It was, therefore, prayed that orders allowing bail to respondents may be cancelled.
(3.) IN the returns filed by the respondents they denied that they had in any manner misused the concession of bail or they attempted to pressurise the witnesses and tampered with the prosecution evidence. It was alleged that no ground was disclosed in the application for curtailing their liberty.;