Court on its motion vs Kulbir Singh

R.L. Anand, J.

Encouraged by the order dated 24.2.1997, passed by Shri J.S. Korrey, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, granting bail to Kulbir Singh, Jasbir Singh, his coaccused, made a petition under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of bail in this court, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.5.1997 and at the same time, this court formulated an opinion that Kulbir Singh should be called upon to explain as to why his bail should not be declined. In pursuance of that notice, I am passing the present small order.

Before I meet the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kulbir Singh, let me narrate the allegations which are the subject matter of FIR No. 132 dated 15.11.1996, registered in Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, under Section (sic) read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The FIR in this case was registered on the statement of one Paramjit Singh s/o Harchand Singh who stated that he was working as Secretary in Pakhowal Cooperative Society. He had two brothers, one is named Balbir Singh and the other Jagtar Singh. His brother Jagtar Singh had two sons; namely, Jagbir Singh aged 7 years and the younger is Balraj Singh, aged 5 years. Jagbir Singh was studying in Guru Hargobind Singh Public School at Mandi Ahmedgarh. He used to go to the school by the School Van. On the date of occurrence, Paramjit Singh made Jagbir Singh to stand at Bhainiwala Chowk as usual and he went aside in order to urinate himself at about 7.30 a.m. In the meantime, a Van bearing Registration No. DDA 7293 white colour came from Bhainiwala side. It stopped near the place where the nephew of Paramjit Singh was standing. Four persons were travelling in the Van. Two of them were sitting in the front seat and two were sitting on the back seat, and wrapped clothes around their bodies. A person who was sitting on the back seat caught hold of Jagbir Singh from arm and threw him into the Van along with the school bag and, thereafter, the Van sped away towards the side of the Bus Stop. The complainant further gave the identification of Jagbir Singh by stating that he was aged about 7 years, fair complexioned with white shirt, green pant, red jerssey with white strips and wearing black colour shoes and white socks. It was also alleged by the complainant that the four persons had abducted his nephew Jagbir Singh to kill. Ultimately, during the course of investigation, it was found that Kulbir Singh was one of the culprits. He applied for bail which was granted by Mr. Korrey vide order dated 24.2.1997, by stating as follows :

"Jagbir Singh was recovered on 22.11.1996 from accused Kulbir Singh and Gurmel Singh, the other accused was arrested on 21.11.1996. The accused are stated to be in judicial custody. It is stated that Kulbir Singh was having a dispute with his wife and she was not sent by her parents and the boy was kidnapped in order to compel his wife. The accused are in judicial custody and challan against them has not been presented. Considering the fact that there is a family dispute of the accused Kulbir Singh with his wife, and the challan has not been presented so far, therefore, the accused are entitled to the benefit of bail and they are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate."

Bail is the rule but jail is an exception. It is the recognised principle of law and even this court does not want to disagree with this broad proposition. This court is also cognizant of the fact that when the concession of bail has been granted to an accused, strong grounds are required in order to cancel the bail as liberty of an individual is involved. But the provisions of Section 439 subsection (2) read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, in no manner curtail the powers of the High Court to cancel the bail when the High Court formulates an opinion that the court granting the concession of bail to the petitioner/citizen had exercised that power by taking into consideration totally irrelevant considerations. What are those considerations on which this court should rely before cancelling the bail have been summarised recently in a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Nebulal Shaw, 1997(3) RCR (Crl.) 39 , which has taken notice of all the judgments on this point by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India including State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subba Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961 and Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179, and the Hon''ble Division Bench ultimately formulated the following considerations before the power to cancel the bail could be exercised and those considerations are :

"(i) Nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence was committed.

(ii) Position and status of the accused with reference to victim and the witnesses.

(iii) Likelihood of accused fleeing from justice.

(iv) Likelihood of accused repeating the offence or jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case.

(v) Likelihood of tampering with witnesses.

(vi) History of the case as well as of its investigation.

(vii) Other relevant grounds amenable to variable factors."

We are a country which is governed by the principles of law. Nobody is permitted to take the law into his own hands. If there was some dispute between Kulbir Singh and his wife it does not mean that he could resort to such illogical methods so as to put the life of a small kid in peril. The allegations of the First Information Report would show that an effort has been made by the disgruntled husband, who has taken the assistance of certain other persons, to kidnap a small child to compel his wife to arrive at a settlement. Law courts are supposed not only to interpret the law but also to preserve the dignity of law and to ensure that provisions of the law are executed in a deterrent manner so that no unscrupulous person like Kulbir Singh may take the law in his own hands.

The learned counsel for Kulbir Singh made an endeavour to convince this court, after relying upon Bhagirathsinh s/o Mahipat Singh v. State of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284, and Dolat Ram and others v. The State of Haryana, JT 1995(1) SC 127, that once the discretion of grant of bail has been exercised by the learned trial court, it should not be interfered with. So far as the proposition of law as stated by the learned counsel for Kulbir Singh is concerned, I myself have stated at the very outset that strong grounds are required to cancel a bail. But, if the bail has been granted by the trial court by taking into consideration totally irrelevant considerations and by ignoring even the basic principles of law by giving a gobye to the allegations themselves, the High Court will be totally justified in quashing any such order. I have already quoted the operative portion of the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and this court is of the considered opinion that those considerations granting the bail are not only irrelevant but also against the recognised principles of law and cannot be endorsed by any parameters.

Resultantly, I cancel the bail of Kulbir Singh given to him vide order dated 24.2.1997 and directions are given to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to take Kulbir Singh into custody. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, directly for immediate compliance. The copy of this order may also be sent to Mr. Korrey whereever he is posted for his future knowledge.