Court on its own motion vs Baljinder Singh

R. L. Anand, J.

Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations made against Sarvshri Ram Kumar, Bijender Singh and Teka, this court is of the opinion that none of the accused is entitled to the grant of bail. On account of the positive act performed by the accused, the life of an innocent child has been lost. Such serious allegations cannot go unnoticed, as in the opinion of this court, this would hamper the process of law itself.

Shri Ram Kumar, one of the accused, was declined bail by the court of Session at Rohtak, vide order dated 6th April, 1996. The said gentleman filed Criminal Misc. No. 1693M of 1997 and I dismissed the said application and issued show cause notice to Sarvshri Bijender Singh and Teka, the coaccused of Shri Ram Kumar petitioner, to show cause why their bail applications should not be cancelled.

Shri J. S. Bhatti, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Bijender Singh and Teka, and brought to my notice that Teka in this case was released on bail by the court of Hon''ble Mr. Justice N. K. Kapoor. In these circumstances, the bail granted to Teka cannot be cancelled by this Bench, being a coordinate Bench. In support of his contention Shri J. S. Bhatti has relied upon Vikram Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 S.C. 474. Fully agreeing with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Registry is directed to put up the case of Teka before Hon''ble Mr. Justice N. K. Kapoor for further orders.

So far as Bijender Singh is concerned, he was not granted bail by the High Court. Keeping in view the allegations ascribed to this gentleman, I am of the considered opinion that this man was not entitled to the grant of bail. Resultantly, the bail of Bijender Singh is hereby cancelled and directions are given to the police to arrest this petitioner and produce him before the Court and this man will face the trial according to law.

I do not agree with the submissions raised by Shri J. S. Bhatti, Advocate, who raised a point of law that this Court cannot cancel the bail suo motu under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C., when the bail has been granted by the Court of Session. The case law relied upon by Shri Bhatti in this regard is Rajendra Jainarayan Sharma v. R. P. Patankar, Asstt. Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Bombay, 1993 Crl.L.J. 1550. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts in hand. This court is fully competent to cancel the bail granted by the subordinate court, if it has been granted on wrong principles of law. Need not to repeat the allegations, the case of the prosecution is that all the accused kept confined some of the labourers as bonded labourers and molested their womenfolk at the brick kiln in the area of Hassangarh owned by Bijender accused. During investigation, Smt. Bachno made a statement to the effect that Ram Kumar and Bijender Singh accused committed rape upon her at the brick kiln of Dalbir in the area of Khurampur, District Sonepat, and, thereafter all the labourers were brought to the brick kiln of Bijender. It has been further alleged by Smt. Bachno that she was given beatings by Ram Kumar and Teka and in this process her 1 months old child fell down from lap but Ram Kumar and his coaccused did not allow her to pick up the child, as a result of which the child died due to cold. In the light of such serious allegations when the offence has been committed against the womenfolk and Smt. Bachno was not allowed to pick up the child, in the opinion of this Court such criminals do not deserve the sympathy of the Court. In this view of the matter, the bail of Bijender Singh stands cancelled.