AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LEAVE granted.
WE find that in the present case, the High court was not justified in interfering with the order of the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail of the respondent-accused. The learned Sessions Judge had given cogent reasons for passing the order in question by pointing out that the accused had threatened the material witnesses in question including the complainant, on two occasions. On the first occasion, an application was filed for cancellation of their bail. It was, however, rejected. Within another few days a second attempt was made to threaten the witnesses. That was inquired into both by the Station House Officer as well as by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, They found substance in the complaints. Hence it was the State which moved the court for cancellation of the bail relying upon the verified report of the police officers. The learned Sessions Judge took into consideration all the relevant facts and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to cancel the bail in order to maintain a terror- free atmosphere during the proceedings. The High court, while setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge stated that the learned Judge was arbitrary and had made the order of cancellation of bail without any material being "marshalled on the record" to support the conclusion. We are unable to appreciate this reason. A perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that he has referred to all the material circumstances on record and has come to his conclusion in question. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High court and maintain the order of the Sessions Judge dated 26/11/1992 and direct that the accused, who have already been taken into custody, pursuant to the non-bailable warrants issued by this court, will remain in custody till the trial is over.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.