Allahabad High Court
Sateyndra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Arun Kumar Deshwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187412
A.F.R.
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4575 of 2023
Revisionist :- Sateyndra And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Judgment
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kasganj in Session Trial No. 173 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Niwas and another) relating to crime number 0033 of 2022 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Sahavar District Kasganj. By the impugned order, the learned trial court cancelled the bail and the revisionists were sent to Jail.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the they were granted bail by this court vide its order dated 15.11.2022, 18.11.2022 and 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47180 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22379 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44615 of 2022. During the trial, the revisionists did not misuse the liberty of bail.
3. During the trial, two prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as PW 1 Ranjeet Kumar and PW 2 Jai Prakash. Both the witnesses were declared hostile since they did not support the version of the prosecution. Statement of PW 3 Manoj was recorded on 05.07.2023. He also did not support the prosecution version and was thus declared as hostile.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that on 19.07.2023, when the cross examination of PW 3 Manoj was recorded he stated that he had given his earlier statement according to his free will. Later on, he stated that he was pressurized by the accused namely Sunil, Ram Niwas and Satendra. Further this witness, while replying to the question asked by the learned trial court, stated that accused Ram Niwas, Satendra and Sunil threatened him to testify properly. The learned trial court suo motto proceeded to cancel the bail of the accused/ revisionists while no application was moved by the prosecution to cancel the bail earlier granted to the revisionists. The revisionists did not temper the evidence which is apparent by the evidence of all the three witnesses examined so far by the prosecution.
5.The learned counsel for the revisionists argued that learned trial Court was duty bound to afford an opportunity of hearing or to issue a show cause notice to them as to why their bail should not be cancelled before proceeding to cancel the bail. The learned trial court arbitrarily acted and proceeded to cancel the bail granted to the revisionist by this Court. He further submitted that the learned trial Court did not adhere the settled proposition of law that an accused is to be heard necessarily before his bail is cancelled. Thus the trial court has violated the principle of natural justice. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is perverse and against the settled principles of law therefore it is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated that as per the statement of PW-3 Manoj Kumar, it was concluded by the learned trial court that PW-3 Manoj Kumar has deposed under the pressure of the revisionist since he was threatened by them to testify properly. As a result of this, he did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile. However learned AGA did not controvert the preposition of law that an accused is to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before his bail is cancelled.
7. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
8. The perusal of the record goes to show that vide the impugned order the learned trial Court opined that the revisionists has misused the liberty of bail. The statement of PW-3 Manoj Kumar was recorded on 05.07.2023. On the next date i.e. on 19.07.2022, he stated that earlier he gave his statement according to his free will. He was pressurized by the accused persons. In reply to the question asked by the learned trial court, he stated that he was asked by the accused persons to testify properly.
9. On the basis of above testimony of the witness the learned trial court opined that the revisionist has tempered the evidence and has threatened the witness to testify in their favour. The accused/ revisionists has violated the conditions of bail imposed by this court.
10. In P.K. Shaji alias Thammanam Shaji Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 100, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"6...It is equally true that the accused who is on bail, should be heard before an order of cancellation of bail is passed by the Court. This Court in Gurdev Singh v. State of Bihar [(2005) 13 SCC 286 : AIR 2000 SC 3556 (1) : (2004) 4 Crimes 103] held that the accused must be given notice and opportunity of hearing before the bail granted to him is cancelled."
11. In view of above, it transpires that bail cannot be cancelled without issuing notice to the applicant and without affording them a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is patently wrong. The learned Court below while passing the impugned order completely ignored the provision of law and the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that learned trial court acted in a hurried manner and merely on the basis of the statement of PW-3 Manoj Kumar concluded that the revisionist had influenced the witness and had also coerced the witness to give testimony in their favour.
12. It is also observed that vide the impugned order the learned trial court sent the revisionists to the judicial custody which was not in accordance with the law given the facts and circumstance of the case. If the trial court was of the opinion that the revisionists had violated any condition of the bail order passed by this Court or they had coerced the witness, the trial court was legally bound to serve a notice to the revisionists to show them a cause as to why their bail should not be cancelled. And after hearing the revisionists, the trial court ought to have passed the order according to the law.
13. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court suffers with illegality and hence not sustainable. As a result, the revision deserves to be allowed.
Order
14. This criminal revision is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside.
15. Learned trial court is directed to release the revisionists forthwith against the same bail bonds filed by them pursuant to bail orders passed by this court.
16. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned through the District Judge, Kasganj through e-mail for immediate compliance.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023
Imtiyaz
