- (1.) The petitioner, who is complainant has filed this application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to Sillo @ Firoz under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. by the order of this court dated 18.9.2009.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. M.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner that at the time of arguments in the bail application on 18.9.2009, learned counsel Mr. Suresh Sahni has made a false statement that except Pappi, whose bail application was withdrawn, the case under Section 307 IPC is not made out against other accused persons namely Kalian Khan, Noor, Hanif, Rafi, Bindu and Shillo. On this statement this court granted bail to these accused persons. The correct fact is that the main accused in the case is Shillo @ Firoz, who gave blow by stone and he is main accused. The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the non petitioner Sillo, argued that while granting bail under Section 438 Cr..P.C. to the non-petitioner, Mr. Azad Ahmed, learned counsel for the complainant was also present and in his presence, this Court granted bail to Sillo non-petitioner. This Court granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the presence of the counsel for the accused, petitioners, Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant. It was the duty of the counsel appearing before the Court to apprise all the facts in the case. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner Sillo argued that the non-petitioner has not violated the conditions on which he was granted bail and there is no likelihood of him tampering with the witnesses of the case. Thus the bail granted to Sillo, in these circumstances cannot be withdrawn at this stage. The FIR, which is Parcha Bayan it is alleged that the non-petitioner Sillo was one of the assailant along with four-five others persons and only Pappi gave farsa blow on the complainant. In Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana, 1995 1 SCC 349, wherein the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case and cancellation of bail already granted, was brought out and it was observed as under: "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, ' broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." In Appeal (Cri.) 1248 of 2005 State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi decided on 26.9.2005, the Apex Court relying on the decision in S.N. Bhattacharjee vs. State of West Bengal, 2004 11 SCC 165 reiterated the principles in Dolat Ram's case and held as under: They also relied on the decision in S.N. Bhattacharjee vs. State of West Bengal, 2004 11 SCC 165 where the above principle is reiterated. The decisions in Dolat Ram and Bhattacharjee cases relate to applications for cancellation of bail and not appeals against orders granting bail. In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant. But in an appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were relevant under Section 439 read with Section 437, continue to be relevant. We, however, agree that while considering and deciding appeals against grant of bail, where the accused has been at large for a considerable time, the post bail conduct and supervening circumstances will also have to be taken note of. But they are not the only factors to be considered as in the case and applications for cancellation of bail. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi, 2001 4 SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 AIR(SC) 179." The cancellation of bail amount to interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. The learned counsel for the complainant petitioner has not been able to point out any violation of the conditions of bail granted to the accused petitioner Sillo and only stated that his counsel has.stated false statement before the Court while passing the order of bail in his favour.
(3.) For the reasons mentioned, above the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-petitioner is rejected. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously.;