Chuni Lal and others vs State of Punjab

Harphul Singh Brar and K.S. Kumaran, JJ.

Sunil Kumar and Hans Raj were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Chuni Lal was also convicted alongwith others u/s 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide his order dated 19.9.1995. All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to by a fine of Rs. 400/ each, in default of payment of which they were ordered to undergo 5 months R.I. They filed an appeal against the judgment vide which they were convicted and sentenced. The appeal was admitted on 17.10.1995. On 30.10.1995, the Division Bench of this Court suspended the sentence of Sunil Kumar alia Kalia and Hans Raj appellants and directed their release on bail to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Ferozepur.

An application was filed by the complainantapplicant through his counsel for cancellation of bail granted to the appellants Sunil Kumar and Hans Raj. Notice in that application was given by the Division Bench of this Court on 1.2.1996 to Sunil Kumar and Hans Raj to show cause as to why the bail granted to them earlier should not be cancelled.

After service of notice, the case has been set up for hearing before us today. Mr. K.S. Ahulwalia, Advocate represents the appellants Sunil Kumar and Hans Raj and Mahtab Singh, DAG, Punjab appears for the State of Punjab, The counsel for the appellants had sought time to file reply but he did not choose to file the reply and argued the matter without filing the reply.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded for the cancellation of the bail of the appellants Sunil Kumar and Hans Raj on the grounds taken up in the application which are reproduced as under:

(1) That this Hon''ble Court was pleased to admit the above titled appeal filed by the accused Chuni Lal and others and to further order release on bail the appellants No. 2 and 3 namely Sunil Kumar and Hans Raj vide its order dated October 30, 1995.

(2) That after release of the said appellants on bail they have totally misused the concession of the bail by causing constant threat to the life of the complainant/applicant and his family members.

(3) That the said appellants repeatedly indulged in passing threats of dire consequences having come drunk in front of the house of applicant and by giving filthy abuses raising ''lalkaras''.

(4) That the aggrieved applicant who is having small children, being afraid approached the local police for security of his life and property. In pursuance of an application filed by the applicant the above named appellants were summoned in the police station, who even went to the extent of threatening the applicant with dire consequences in presence of police. Resultantly, proceedings under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against them vide colander dated 16.11.1995, a copy of which along with translation is filed herewith. Further pursuant to the said calender the above said appellants were bound under section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 16.11.1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Abohar.

(5) That notwithstanding that the appellants were bound by furnishing surety bounds for maintaining peace, they again took up the law in their hands and have repeated the above acts which has caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of applicant and his family members that they may be further attacked by the said appellants. In view of the circumstances, even the local police after enquiry, has recommended cancellation of bail of the said appellants. True translation of the report of the police dated 14.12.1995 is also filed herewith.

(6) That the applicant belongs to poor ''Dhanak'', a minority community whereas the appellants are very rich and influential persons. They have already taken the life of elder son of the applicant and are still bent upon making the life of the applicant and his family very miserable.

In view of the allegations made above, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the appellants are misusing their liberty ever since they were enlarged on bail by doing acts of violence and threatening the life and property of the complainant. The allegations made by the complainant are supported by an affidavit filed by him and these have not been rebutted by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before us that the grounds taken up in the application by the complainant were not sufficient to cancel the bail of the appellants granted to them by the High Court vide order dated 30.10.1995. He has cited Lakhmir Singh alias Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 Criminal Law Times 258, Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar and others, 1990 Cr. L.J. 1904, State v. Radha Krishnan, 1994(2) Crimes 626 and Ramrati v. Ram Krishan and others, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 328 , in support of his contention. These authorities of different High Courts cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of this cases. The facts in this case are rather akin to the facts of a case in Pampapathy and another v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 286 in which similarly, on conviction by the trial Court, the Mysore High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the appellants, and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainantapplicant in which it has been stated that the appellants were misusing the concession of bail by causing constant threats to life and property of the complainant and his family members and that they were hurling filthy abuses and raising lalkaras to the complainant while drunk in front of the house of the complainant. It is further stated in the affidavit that though the appellants were bound down u/s 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 16.11.1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Abohar, but still they took up the law in their hands and are repeatedly making threats to the applicant.

In our opinion, the allegations made by the applicant which are supported by an affidavit, establish that the appellants are misusing the liberty granted to them ever since they have been enlarged on bail. We, therefore, order that the bail granted to the appellants is hereby cancelled and they shall be rearrested and committed to judicial custody immediately.

Pronounced in open Court.