State of Haryana vs Magan Singh

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

This order will also dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 3210M of 1993, State of Haryana v. Inspector Bhagwan Dass.

One Bishambar Dayal, a resident of Bhatsana was involved in a theft case pertaining to F.I.R. No. 195 under Section 379 I.P.C. for committing the theft of electric wire from the tubewell of Public Health Department. He was produced before the police in that case by one Bannie Singh, a resident of Dharuhera and he was interrogated by Magan Singh Assistant Sub Inspector and Bhagwan Dass Inspector, S.H.O. Police Station, Dharuhera, Bishambar sustained some injuries and on 30th October, 1992 a ''new item'' appeared in the Tribune that Bishambar Dass a Harijan youth was castrated by the Police while in police custody. The matter was got investigated by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon and Shri Surjit Singh Inspector Welfare reported that Bishambar was kept in illegal custody by the police of Dharuhera from 7.10.1992 to 10.10.1992 and during this period he was tourtured by some police officials. A case was then registered against Magan Singh and Bhagwan Dass respondents under Section 307 I.P.C. and for some other offences. Magan Singh who was arrested on 12.11.1992 applied for his bail and he was released on bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide his order dated 17.11.1992. Bhagwan Dass Inspector was arrested later on and he was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on 30.1.1993. The State of Haryana has filed the present applications under Section 439(2) CrPC praying for cancellation of bail of Magan Singh and Inspector Bhagwan Dass.

In the application against Magan Singh it was alleged that he was a police officer and was trying to influence the witnesses, who also belong to the police department. Against Bhagwan Dass it was averred that he was wrongly granted the concession of bail. He made a false report regarding the presence of Bishambar in police station. Being a police officer he could tamper with the evidence and pressurise the witnesses who were to depose against him. It was, therefore, prayed that orders allowing bail to respondents may be cancelled.

In the returns filed by the respondents they denied that they had in any manner misused the concession of bail or they attempted to pressurise the witnesses and tampered with the prosecution evidence. It was alleged that no ground was disclosed in the application for curtailing their liberty.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the applications shows that the only allegations against the respondents were that they were police officials and as such they were likely to pressurise the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. No specific instance was given whereby any undue influence was exercised by the respondents upon the prosecution witnesses so as to thwart the course of justice. Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail are interference with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice or abuse of the liberty granted to the accused. In the present case there are no averments that the respondents ever absented themselves at any hearing in the Court or they intimidated any witness. The mere fact that the respondents are police officials is no ground to interfere with discretionary orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail. It was contended before me that Inspector Bhagwan Dass has since retired, while A.S.I. Magan Singh is under suspension. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required for an order seeking cancellation of bail, which are missing in the instant case.

As a result, I find no merit in the applications and dismiss the same.