9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r are of having caused the injury on the head of the injured Ashok. Though it has been suggested that such injury was caused with a dagger, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues with reference to the injury report that the report had not been specific on the nature of the weapon used and rather, in relation to the weapon, 'not known' is the comment made; and then, according to the learned counsel, the injury, being in the length of about 10 cm, is not likely to have been caused on the head by a dagger. The submission made before the Court do not make out a case for grant of bail to the accused at this stage particularly when it is noticed that there had been at least two injuries on the head of the injured with fracture of left temporooccipital bone; and the petitioner is alleged to the author of such injuries. 2. Thereafter, just after a laps of 14 days i.e. on 22.12.2009, another bail application was moved by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. At the foot note of the bail application as well as in the body of the bail application, it was mentioned that it is a second bail application on behalf of the respondent and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contra, Dr. Sachin Acharya appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Sessions Court whilst granting bail to the respondent had passed the order of bail on 31.12.2009 after being conscious of the fact that the bail application filed by the respondent No. 2 stood rejected by this Court. He thus submits that it is the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C which has been exercised by the lower Court whilst granting bail to the respondent which should not be interfered with. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan Anr. (2011) 5 scc 296, it has been submitted that the considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail are entirely different and that the bail once granted cannot be cancelled simply because it was granted for erroneous considerations. It has been submitted that there is no allegation in the application seeking cancellation of bail that the respondent had misused the bail granted to him and therefore the powers under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. should not be exercised for cancelling the bail granted to the accused. 6. It has also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being different from a consideration for grant of bail does not help the respondent accused in the facts and circumstance of the present case. It is question of propriety in this case as to whether, once this Court whilst exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. had rejected the bail application filed by the respondent just on 8.12.2009 then it is a question to be examined by this Court as to what was the change in circumstances just within a period of 23 days thereafter, which persuaded the learned Presiding Officer who was officiating as a link Sessions Judge during the winter break to grant bail to the respondent and that too whilst making comments on the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner-complainant. 10. As has already been observed above, this Court whilst considering the bail application filed by the petitioner had made a detailed consideration of the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and had considered the fact that the injuries were serious injuries located on the head of the injured. The size of the injury was noted by this Court as being in the length of about 10 cm. This Court also noted there was a repetition of the injuries on the hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lid ground for granting bail to the respondent accused in this matter. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others (1994) 2 SCC 8 dealing with the similar situation held as below:- 2. In view of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate at a later stage has himself cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for us to pass any order with regard to the petitioner's prayer for cancellation of bail but the disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court yet the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions. The manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case can give rise to the apprehensions which were expressed by the complainant in her complaint, which was treated by this Court as a writ petition and is being dealt with as such. In the course that we are adopting, we would not like to comment upon the manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case any more at this stage. 15. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
