Kewal Krishan Bajaj vs State of Haryana and ors.

J.S. Sekhon, J.—Jyoti Kumar and Bhagwan Dass were arrested in case under Secs 406, 498A, and 506, Indian Penal Code, registered against them vide FIR No. 858 dated 8101989, at P.S. City Panipat on 22101989 and were remanded to Police Custody on 23101989 up till 25101989 as is apparent from Annexure P. 4, copy of the order of Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Again the accused were remained from time to time to policecustody up till 7101989. On 27.101989 Jyoti Kumar and Bhagwan Dass made a joint statement (Annexure P. 1) before the Court that they were ready to deposit Rs. 90,000/ in the name of Suman Bala complainant within one month as the price of 31 tolas of gold ornaments and that they had settled this matter outside the court. Thereafter, on the same date on the basis of this statement, Assistant Public Prosecutor did not press for police custody and the accused were granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order Annexure P.2.

These accusedrespondents had to make payment by or before 27111989. Instead of doing so, Bhagwan Dass Arora wrote letter Annexure P. 3 of that date to the father of Suman Bala to the effect that they had never voluntarily agreed to pay Rs. 90,000/ but were made to state so under coercion. This resulted in the complainant filing an application for cancellation of bail granted to the accusedrespondents. The learned Magistrate vide order Annexure P/4 rejected this application on the ground that he had never granted conditional bail to the accused respondents and that nonpayment of Rs. 90,000/ was of no consequence., Aggrieved against the said order Annexure P.1 the petitioners have filed this petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of the accused respondents.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. In view of the factum that the petitioners were in police custody since 22101989 and have been interrogated by the investigating officer till 27101969 when they were produced before the Court, it transpires that the offer to pay Rs. 90,000/ as the price of gold ornaments by the accused respondents may, to some extent, have prompted the Assistant Public Prosecutor not to press his request for police custody but it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the court had granted conditional bail to the accusedrespondents on the basis of this understanding between the parties. The trial court was the best judge in this regard and the perusal of order Annexure P. 4 clearly shows that the Judicial Magistrate had not granted conditional bail to the accusedrespondents, especially when ample opportunity was afforded to the investigator to interrogate the accusedrespondents No case for cancellation of bail is thus made out.

Dismissed.