2011 (11) TMI 794 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for cancellation of bail.
2. Justification for granting bail by the Sessions Court.
3. Considerations for cancellation of bail.
4. Change in circumstances post rejection of bail by the High Court.

Summary:

1. Application for cancellation of bail:
The petitioner, an injured-complainant, filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 266/09 for offences u/s 307, 325, 323, 341/34 IPC. The High Court had previously rejected respondent No. 2's bail application on 8.12.2009, noting the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the petitioner.

2. Justification for granting bail by the Sessions Court:
Subsequently, on 22.12.2009, respondent No. 2 filed another bail application before the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, which was granted on 31.12.2009 by the link Officer during the winter break. The Sessions Judge observed that none of the injuries were dangerous to life and that the respondent's wife was undergoing treatment, thus granting bail.

3. Considerations for cancellation of bail:
The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge's order was unjustified, as there was no change in circumstances since the High Court's rejection of bail. The respondent countered that the discretion u/s 439 Cr.P.C. exercised by the lower Court should not be interfered with, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan & Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 296, which differentiates considerations for granting and cancelling bail.

4. Change in circumstances post rejection of bail by the High Court:
The High Court noted that the considerations for granting and cancelling bail are not absolute and depend on the case's facts and circumstances. The Court emphasized that the Sessions Judge's order overlooked the High Court's detailed observations on the injuries' seriousness and the medical opinion that the injuries were "dangerous to life." Additionally, no new circumstances justified the bail granted by the Sessions Judge, and the respondent's wife's illness was not substantiated with documents.

Conclusion:
The High Court found the Sessions Judge's order granting bail to be patently illegal and an abuse of process. The application for cancellation of bail was allowed, directing the trial judge to take respondent No. 2 into custody and proceed with the trial. The Court clarified that this cancellation does not preclude the respondent from seeking bail again per legal procedures.