Chanchal Singh vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Chanchal Singh petitioner has filed an application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur as per Annexure P1 dated March 16, 1999 in FIR No. 39 dated 9.3.1999 under Sections 465/468/471/120B IPC to the respondents No. 2 to 13.

Brief facts of the case are as under :

The Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Ltd. a registered company is running the business of carrying passangers on payment. It was registered in the year 1937. Manjit Singh Lalli is the General Manager and Gurbachan Singh is the Chairman while other applicants are its Directors. The present case was registered against Manjit Singh Lalli and others for the transfer of 1912 shares illegally on the statement of Chanchal Singh who is a share holder of the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Limited having 2135 shares. It is alleged that his signatures have been forged by the Directors in connivance with Surinder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur. No payment whatsoever was made to him by Surinder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur.

I have heard Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate on behalf of respondents 2 to 13 and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, AAG appearing on behalf of Punjab State.

The case of the petitioner set out in the application in hand is that there are specific and serious allegations in the FIR. The signatures of the petitioner have been forged by the Directors i.e. respondents No. 2 to 13 in connivance with Surinder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur. No payment was made to the petitioner for the transfer of the shares, therefore, considering the nature of the offence being serious, they were not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. Thus, the bail order may be cancelled.

Mr. Ghuman, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the documentary evidence regarding illegal transfer of the shares by respondent clearly indicates that the shares of the petitioner have been illegally transferred by forging the signatures of the petitioner as well as that of Jaswinder Kaur.

The aforesaid submissions do relate to the allegations contained in the FIR and the documents brought on the record. It is yet to be seen whether forgery has been committed if so by whom. Bail granted to a person should not to 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 rekin (regain ?) his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail as has been held in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 237.

Bail is a privilege and can be cancelled if there is preponderance of probabilities that the person who is on bail has attempted to tamper with the evidence or threatened the witnesses in such a manner that it would prejudice the trial of the case. In the given case it is not made out that while on bail, they have threatened the prosecution witnesses, or they have tampered with the prosecution evidence. Not even a single circumstances in this regard has come on the record nor it is set out in the application in hand.

The petitioner is repeatedly making reference to the transfer of the shares and the act of forging the signatures by respondents No. 2 to 13 which is already the basis for the registration of the case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed in detail the rival contentions of both the parties and only thereafter passed an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order for the purpose of cancellation of bail by exercising the powers under section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

In the result this application is dismissed.