2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Vinder Singh Bhou cancelled the pre-arrest bail given to Ashu who was allegedly involved in FIR No 45/2020 u/s 436/458/427/380/506 IPC.
According Complainant-applicant has sought indulgence of this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non-applicant no.2 on the ground that non-applicant no.2 is not well educated and is often involved in criminal activities like indulging in commission of offence under NDPS Act and number of cases have been registered against him in concerned police station; that Varun Kumar son of applicant is well known to non-applicant no.2 but often the non-applicant no.2 started exploitation of his friendship with said son of applicant and often used to demand money illegally which the son of the applicant used to refuse, which created verge in their friendship and in result of which non-applicant no.2 became hostile towards the son of the applicant; that son of the applicant, who is in Army came home on leave on 08.03.2020 and non-applicant no.2 alongwith is friend Suraj Kumar, who has also criminal background contacted on phone and asked son of the applicant to pay heavy amount failing which physical assault made to him as well as house will be set to fire. That pursuant to said threat non-applicant no.2 alongwith his friend set on fire the house of the applicant after house breaking and also stole the cash as well as jewellary and also threatened of dire consequences and accordingly FIR no. 45/2020 for offences under sections 436/458/427/380/506 IPC came to be registered and sensing the trouble to be faced by non-applicant no.2 and in order to avoid his arrest, non-applicant no.2 obtained interim bail under section 438 Cr.P.C by misrepresentation of facts.
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Virender Singh Bhou after hearing APP DP Singh for the UT observed that In view of the report and the other material on record, grant of bail to the accused in terms of section 438 Cr.P.C is unwarranted because on balancing rights of the accused and that of the society and complainant, rights of the latter have an edge and grant of bail to the accused would shatter the faith and confidence of the public at large in the judicial system and also apprehension of prosecution that accused in case of bail would give a slip to the investigation and law, appears to be genuine and well founded having regard to the antecedents of the accused. The offences alleged against the accused are heinous in nature, the exercise of discretion for grant of anticipatory bail thus, cannot be exercised. The plea of learned counsel for the applicant-accused that bail once granted cannot be cancelled is not tenable because Court while granting interim bail has not taken into consideration the police report and the facts, which emerge there from against the accused and since the absolute bail has not been granted, there is no bar to terminate the interim bail granted in anticipation of arrest by this Court. Post bail conduct of the accused is also not satisfactory as per I.O because he is not cooperating with him and rather threatening the prosecution witnesses from deposing against him. For the reasons assigned herein above, and having regards to the nature of accusations against the accused, severity of the punishment for the offences alleged against the accused, possibility of tampering with evidence and threatening the witnesses being not ruled out, I am not inclined to grant absolute bail to the accused and the interim bail granted to the accused on 14.03.2020 is cancelled and bail application is dismissed. JNF