Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashpal Khanna vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 March, 2010
Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision:22-3-2010
Yashpal Khanna ......... Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and another .........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mrs. Neena Madan, Additional Advocate General Haryana
Mr. N.S. Kohli, Advocate, for respondent No.2
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Yashpal Khanna under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to Vijay Aggarwal alias Machy respondent No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-18) in case F.I.R. No. 114 dated 11.6.2009 under Section 306/34 IPC, Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the deceased son of the petitioner namely Pankaj Kumar Khanna aged about 27 years was working as Press Correspondent. He was also running a shop of gift items in the name of Khanna Gift Palace at Naraingarh and was income tax payee. He being a Press Correspondent had high-lighted the irregularities committed by the co-accused Ram Kishan in the news magazine "Crime Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Tehkikat". This was published in the month of August, 2008. After publication thereof, the respondent No.2 got registered a false and frivolous F.I.R. No. 159 dated 24.8.2008 against the deceased under Sections 323,506,294,342,290,510,504,186,353 IPC in Police Station Naraingarh at the instance of the above mentioned M.L.A. accused and respondent No.2. The accused-respondent No.2 Vijay Aggarwal and co-accused Ajit Aggarwal have been indulging in illegal activities at the instance of said M.L.A. due to ulterior motive. In the said F.I.R. deceased alleged against the deceased that he committed an offence while he was drunk but the F.S.L. report showed that no Ethyl Alcohol could be detected. Earlier the deceased was associated with the political party of M.L.A. Ram Kishan, but later on, the deceased had joined the B.S.P. political party and was working for his real uncle in that party. Due to this reason, the accused persons were after the blood of the deceased and wanted to eliminate him. The deceased was given beatings and threats by accused-respondent No.2 and co-accused Ajit Aggarwal on which the deceased got F.I.R. No. 46 dated 22.3.2009 registered against them under Section 323/506/34 IPC in Police Station Nargaingarh. The police did not initiate any action against the accused persons due to high influence of M.L.A. Ram Kishan. The accused person had been giving threats to the deceased continuously and at one time, had also given beatings to the deceased in the police custody. His life was made miserable by all the three accused-persons and ultimately, he committed suicide by consuming Celphos tablets on 10.6.2009. Before committing suicide, he had left a suicide note duly signed by him. The Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M) 3 petitioner got registered the present F.I.R. After registration of this F.I.R., the accused Vijay Aggarwal and Ajit Aggarwal moved an application seeking their anticipatory bail in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala and the same was dismissed on 16.6.2009. Thereafter, they filed similar petition in this court bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-16714 of 2009. The petition qua Ajit Aggarwal was withdrawn, whereas arrest of Vijay Aggarwal was stayed. Eventually, the anticipatory bail petition qua Vijay Aggarwal was dismissed by this court vide order dated 21.7.2009. Meanwhile the co-accused Ajit Aggarwal was arrested and he was granted concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 17.7.2009. The accused-respondent No.2 filed S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 5518 of 2009 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2009. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on 29.8.2009. Alongwith the main petition, he also moved an application for grant of interim bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Ambala granted interim regular bail vide order dated 31.8.2009. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of interim regular bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2002. The petitioner filed S.L.P. on 6.11.2009. Meanwhile, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 11.11.2009 confirmed the interim bail. The regular bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled on the grounds embodied in this petition.
Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M) 4
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that while releasing the accused-respondent No.2 on bail, no specific reason has been given by the learned trial Court despite the fact that there is no change of any circumstance since the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. He further pressed into service that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala has allowed the regular bail application on the ground that the Investigating Officer has made a statement that custody of the petitioner was not required and the challan has been presented, and no recovery has to be made and the accused has not misused the concession of interim bail. He further puts that in a case wherein the deceased had left his suicide note in which the respondent No.2 has been specifically named and further the deceased before his death has also made a statement before the Medical Officer, no case was made out for grant of regular bail in view of the observations rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bharadia 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal)
118. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 maintained that this court has observed in the order dated 29.10.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-25498 of 2009 that the plea of cancellation of interim bail granted to respondent No.2 is without any force. The S.L.P. filed thereagainst was also dismissed.
I have well considered the rival contentions.
In Rajendra Prasad Bharadia's case(supra) the dying Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M) 5 declaration was recorded by the Sub Inspector. In the dying declaration it was interalia stated that " I was assaulted during rush. Pradip Sodani poured some kind of inflammable substance on my body. I cannot say what kind of substance it was. Rohit set fire to me with a match stick. I started burning." In the present one, the substance of the suicide note Annexure P-6 is that the accused had given beatings to the deceased inside the Police Station in the presence of Inspector Suresh Sharma. It is further mentioned that after sometime Machy and Ajit attempted to kill me in Bijli Board Wali gali and these people left me by presuming to be dead but luckily and due to my mother and father and due to God I survived the attempt." Thus a comparative study of Rajendra Prasad Bharadia's case(supra) and the present one would reveal that their facts are distinguishable from each other. It is well settled that once bail has been granted it should not be cancelled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being infringed. In Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana 1995(1) Supreme Court Cases 349 it has been held that "generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner." Adverting to the present one, there is nothing on the record to show that the regular bail has been granted without considering the evidence on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity on the face of it. The record is quite barren to show that respondent No.2 has misconducted himself or because of new facts his bail Criminal Misc.No. M-34620 of 2009 (O&M) 6 requires cancellation. It is also pertinent to point out here that the order granting bail is not vitiated by any serious infirmity. There are no allegations against respondent No. 2 that he is threatening the witnesses that if they deposed against him, they will be done to death or that there is apprehension of this accused fleeing from justice or he is making attempts to tamper with the prosecution evidence or he is interferring with the conduction of fair trial by absenting from the proceedings or he has misused the liberty of regular bail granted to him. Such being the circumstances, no case is made out for cancellation of bail.
As a sequel of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed.
(HARBANS LAL) JUDGE March 22, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No