In S.B. Crl. R.P. No. 553/2023-RAJ HC- Simply on account of addition of non-bailable offence, bail granted earlier would not be justifiable to be cancelled: Rajasthan HC quashes order canceling bail as 2 years had lapsed after releasing accused & liberty granted to them was never misused
Justice Farjand Ali [23-05-2023]

Read Order: Bakshi Ram Vs. State Of Rajasthan 

Tulip Kanth

Jodhpur, May 23, 2023: In a case where 2 years had already passed after bail order was passed in favour of the accused persons and they had not abused or misused the liberty so granted to them during that time, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has allowed the revision petition challenging the order canceling bail.

“Even till day, the complainant/victim have not approached this Court for cancellation of order granting bail to the accused”, Justice Farjand Ali said.

For an incident that took place in the year 2021, the rival parties lodged separate FIRs at the Raipur Police Station. The petitioners were made accused in FIR registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, & 34 of the IPC alleging that the accused-petitioners mowed down the standing crop at his agricultural field and when his son went to rebuke the accused, he was beaten up. 

When the first informant Banshi Lal tried to rescue his son, he was also bashed up as a consequence of which, he received grievous injury on his hand.During the course of investigation, the petitioners were released on bail by taking resort of Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. since the offences were bailable. The rival party was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 336 & 325/34 of the IPC. In the case lodged against the petitioners, when the investigation was underway, the first informant passed away and it was stated that the injuries received by him were responsible for his death and, therefore, Section 304 of the IPC was also added.

The Bench noted that the petitioners were given the benefit of bail on account of the fact that at the relevant point of time the offences were bailable but at the same time, since September 2021 the petitioners were on bail and not a single instance had been reported regarding misuse of liberty so granted to them. 

“Now around two years have lapsed after releasing them on bail and the liberty so granted to them was never misused or abused in any manner. Simply on account of addition of a non-bailable offence; the bail granted earlier would not be justifiable to be cancelled”, the Bench further held.

It was the Court’s opinion that circumstances or the consideration would have been different if soon after the death of the first informant and for addition of Section 304 IPC, any application would have been moved on behalf of the State or complainant in the year 2021.

As per the Bench, after two years of the passing the order granting bail and remaining the accused on bail, if an order for cancellation of the same is passed, it might re-ignite the rift and acrimony between the parties. 

Considering that there was a clear allegation that when the first informant made an intervention in a scuffle between the petitioner party and the son of the deceased, he received an injury on his hand, the Bench noted that the same may be a question before the trial Court as to whether the death of the deceased was a direct consequence of the injury allegedly inflicted by the petitioners or not and whether the accused knew that the injury allegedly inflicted may cause his death. 

“After lapse of around two years and with too, without there being any complaint of abusing the liberty so granted to them, I do not deem it appropriate to allow re-apprehension of the accused and to take them into custody”, the Bench noted while adding that one of the petitioner was aged about 62 years and there was no justification for cancellation of bail.

Thus, allowing the criminal revision petition, the Bench quashed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur, District Bhilwar.