Read Order: Navdeep Rai v. State of Punjab and another

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 3, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the consideration for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail are entirely different and that while it is easier to grant bail, it is difficult to cancel bail. 

The petitioner , Navdeep Rai/complainant, had approached this Court seeking cancellation of bail, as granted to second respondent ,Rahul Arora, by an order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that on April 2,2021 at about 4 pm he received a call from his workers at his farm that the local Patwari had called him for demarcation of his land. However, the petitioner had never submitted any such application for getting the land demarcated. 

The petitioner found that the application made for demarcation had been sent under his name. The complainant specifically stated in the FIR that he had never submitted any such application and in fact had never visited any Government Office/Seva Kendra in the area concerned since the last 7/8 years and had never entered the area of Balachaur, since the year 2013. 

The complainant alleged that the said application was apparently an attempt on behalf of some unscrupulous elements to encroach upon his land.

It was further the case of prosecution that upon inquiry, it was found that the application for demarcation had been submitted in the Seva Kendra, where the photograph of the applicant at the time of deposit of requisite fee was also clicked. Upon examining the said record particularly the photograph of the applicant, the applicant was identified by the petitioner’s servant namely Arjun Singh, to be Rahul Arora.

Consequently, aforesaid Rahul Arora was arrested and was granted bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar.

The petitioner’s counsel put forth that the trial Court fell in error in making observations regarding the conduct of the petitioner/complainant as regards his previous involvement in some other case and that in fact the Court fell in error in granting the bail to the petitioner and that there was apprehension that he would indulge in similar kind of offences or some other graver offence so as to cause harm to the petitioner.

The Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill mentioned that it was a case based mainly on documentary evidence which was already with the police.

“ The bail granted to the petitioner cannot be cancelled on mere apprehensions. It is well settled that the consideration for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail are entirely different and that while it is easier to grant bail, it is difficult to cancel bail”, said the Bench while noting that there was no such ground to cancel bail of the second respondent, Rahul Arora.

Thus, finding the petition to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the same.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment