Karan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - unless there..........the present miscellaneous petition for cancellation of the bail has been filed.3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts in the right perspective were not placed before the learned sessions judge and the learned sessions judge was, therefore, not justified in releasing the accused-respondent bhanwar singh on bail. it is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-respondent bhanwar singh has misued the liberty granted to him and is trying to threaten the prosecution witnesses so that they may not depose the truth before the court. in support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of one ratan singh.3a. i have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the court below.4. different considerations prevail with the court in granting and cancelling the bail. while at the time of granting the bail, the court has to take into account the nature of the crime, the nature of the charges, the evidence on record, the possibility of interference with the course of justice, the antecedents of the accused,.....

Judgment:

ORDER

B.R. Arora, J.

1. The petitioner-complainant, by this miscellaneous petition has prayed for cancellation of the bail granted to accused Bhanwar Singh by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by its order dated March 4, 1992.

2. Accused-respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Singh was arrested in pursuance to an F.I.R. No. 32 of 1992 registered at Police Station, Jhanwar. After his arrest, he moved an application for the grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who, by his order dated March 4, 1992, allowed the bail application filed by accused-respondent Bhanwar Singh and ordered that he may be released on bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/-. It is against this order that the present miscellaneous petition for cancellation of the bail has been filed.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts in the right perspective were not placed before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in releasing the accused-respondent Bhanwar Singh on bail. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-respondent Bhanwar Singh has misued the liberty granted to him and is trying to threaten the prosecution witnesses so that they may not depose the truth before the Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of one Ratan Singh.

3A. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Court below.

4. Different considerations prevail with the Court in granting and cancelling the bail. While at the time of granting the bail, the Court has to take into account the nature of the crime, the nature of the charges, the evidence on record, the possibility of interference with the course of justice, the antecedents of the accused, furtherance of interest of justice and socio-geographical circumstances, whereas while considering the application for cancelltion of the bail, the Court has to see whether after the grant of the bail the accused has, in any way, misused the liberty granted to him. The object of Sub-section (5) of Section 437, Cr.P.C. is not punitive but to protect the interest of justice and to prevent it from being tampered with in any manner by the accused. The bail granted to an accused can be cancelled if the accused, after his release on bail, tries to tamper with the evidence or hampers the trial or investigation, committing an act of violence or commits the same offence again. The powers vested with the Court for cancellation of the bail have to be exercised with care and circumspection. In the present case, after perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the learned lower court in granting bail to the accused Bhanwar Singh, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be, in any way, improper. When the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail to the accused Bhanwar Singh is not imporper, the bail granted to the accused should not be cancelled. Unless there are strong and compelling circumstances and the High Court is not expected to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in granting the bail.

5. Now, so far as the question of tampering with the evidence, as alleged by the petitioner, is concerned, only a vague allegation has been made against the accused that he is tampering with the evidence by way of giving threatening. The petitioner, in his own affidavit, has merely stated that the accused is trying to threat the prosecution witnesses and, also, tried tooth and nail to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

6. No specific instance has been given and only a vague allegation has been made. In the affidavit of Ratari Singh, it has been stated that on March 31, 1992, the accused threatened him in his village and said that if he would depose against him in the Court then he would be killed. The place and time where this threat was given, have not been mentioned. Moreover, this witness was not named in the F.I.R., but later on, he was produced as an eye-witness of the occurrence, though he was not examined by the police on same day, but was examined on the next day. The vague allegations made against the accused in these two affidavits do not make out a case for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused. The averments regarding the tampering with or jeopardising the fair trial by the accused has to be made by some positive and specific evidence. No order for cancellation of bail and to take away the liberty of the accused to remain on bail, can be passed in the instant case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the application for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-respondent No. 2 Bhanwar Singh.

7. In the result, the application for cancellation of the bail, filed by the petitioner-complainant, is, therefore, dismissed.