B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS application under section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail has been preferred against the order dated August 31, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to Laxman Singh and Tara Ram.
(2.) ACCUSED Laxman Singh and Tara Ram are facing trial for the offence under Section 30234, I. P. C. in connection with F. I. R. No. 26 of 1990, registered at Police Station, Chunawad district Sri Ganganagar. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the First Information Report filed on January 5, 1990 is that on that day, at about 12. 30 p. m. the petitioners gave beating to the complainant Het Ram by Gandasi and caused injury to him, due to which he succumbed to the injuries. After their arrest, the accused non-petitioners Laxman Singh and Tara Ram moved an application for the grant of bail and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated August 31, 1990, allowed the application and ordered for the release of the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 on bail. It is against this order that the complainant has filed the application for cancellation of the bail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondent. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that looking to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case, the learned lower Court was not justified in enlarging the accused non-petitioners on bail. According to him, it was not a fit case in which the power to grant bail should have been exercised by the learned lower Court in favour of the non-petitioners. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. There are different considerations while considering the application for grant of bail and the application for cancellation of the bail. At the time of granting the bail, the Court has to take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence the likelihood of the accused being fled from justice and his tampering with the prosecution evidence, the position and status of the accused, the likelihood of repeating the offence and such other circumstances, but while cancelling the bail granted by the Court below, the Court has to see whether the order passed by the learned lower Court, granting the bail is vitiated by serious infirmities or that the lower Court has exercised the discretion in favour of the accused capriciously or arbitrarily. The bail granted by the Court below or by the Court itself can be cancelled if the accused, who has been released on bail, has misused the liberty granted to him. The granting of bail is a concession allowed to an accused and if this privilege, granted to him, is misused then he is no longer entitled for any liberty from the Court. The bail can be cancelled only if from the supervening circumstances it appears that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him or is tampering with the witnesses or he intends to flee from the jurisdiction of the Court. Normally, the powers of cancellation of bail are to be exercised when by a preponderance of the probabilities it is clear that the accused is interfering with the cause of justice by tampering with witnesses and this power is to be exercised with care and circumspection. Rejection of bail is one thing while cancellation of the bail already granted, quite another thing. It is easy to reject the bail application than to cancel the same, as the cancellations of bail necessarily involve the review of the decision already made. It is nowhere alleged in the present case that the non-petitioners are misusing the liberty granted to them.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this application has got no force and is hereby dismissed. .;