S.S.SARON,J - (1.) THE petitioner-State of Haryana has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure P-1).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-State and the complainant submit that the respondent after the grant of concession of bail has misused the same. A reference has been made to the various FIRs registered against the respondent i.e. case FIR No. 62 dated 22.2.2005 (Annexure P-3) registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar for the offence under Section 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short); FIR No. 36 dated 14.2.2005 (Annexure P-4) registered at Police Station Agroha for the offences under Sections 385/506/34 IPC and FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) registered at Police Station, City Hisar for the offences under Sections 148/149/506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. A particular reference is made to Case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) to contend that the respondent has misused the concession of bail granted to him. In response, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that in all the FIRs that have been registered against the respondent, he has been granted the concession of bail and in the order dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure R-4) passed by this Court while granting bail to the respondent in case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5), it was contended on behalf of the accused-respondent that the said FIR had been lodged with an object to get the bail, which had been granted to the respondent in the present case, cancelled. On the strength of the said contention bail was granted to the respondent, however, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in terms of order dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure R-4). Therefore, it is contended that the Criminal Misc. Petition seeking cancellation of the bail is liable to be dismissed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is well settled that rejection of bail is on one footing, however, cancellation of the same once granted is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual. Therefore, it is not to be lightly resorted to. It is only when the accused to whom bail has been granted tries to interfere with the due course of justice or misuses the concession of bail by intimidating or threatening the witnesses or indulges in similar activities that a bail can be cancelled. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that a reading of the FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) would show that there has been an attempt on the part of the respondent to interfere with the due course of justice.
(3.) IT would, however, be appropriate to note that it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State as also for the complainant that the concession of bail has been granted to the respondent in the FIRs that have been registered against him after the grant of the concession of bail in the present case. A reading of case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) would show that it relates to an occurrence of 9.2.2005 i.e. two days after the bail was granted by this Court to the respondent on 7.2.2005. However, the FIR has been registered on 24.2.2005. In the said case, the respondent has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure R-4). In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the respondent has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) and even otherwise, there is nothing to show that the petitioner has misused the concession bail granted to him in the present case, I am of the view that no ground is made out for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.;