Delhi High Court
State vs Jagat Narain Gujarati And Anr. on 28 November, 1985
Equivalent citations: 29 (1986) DLT 180, 1986 (10) DRJ 129
Author: G Luthra
Bench: G Luthra
JUDGMENT
G.R. Luthra, J.
(1) The facts are stated in my order dated 20th September 1985 passed in Criminal Misc. (Main) 1093 of 1985. A copy of that order has already been placed on record.
(2) While deciding that petition I suo moto directed issue of a notice to Jagat Narain Gujarati and Smt. Vijay Laxmi who are co-accused in the same case to show cause as to why their bail granted by Shri G.S. Dhaka, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi be not cancelled. It is on account of that notice that the present proceedings are being taken.
(3) During the pendency of these proceedings not only counsel for the State urges that the bail should be cancelled on merits but also he has brought to the notice of this court that Jagat Narain Gujarati, respondent No. I is trying to tamper with the evidence by way of threatening two prosecution witnesses, namely, Bhola Shanker and Sudhir Gupta and that, therefore, that is a good ground for cancellation of the bail. Counsel for the State pointed out that both these witnesses lodged separate reports with the police in respect of the threats extended to them.
(4) Counsel for Jagat Narain and Vijay Laxmi has placed on record an affidavit of Jagat Naraia Gujarati sworn in the date of today. He denies that there was any threat extended to these two witnesses. He explains that Bhola Shanker had litigation with the in-laws of the former arid that, therefore, he is unnecessarily and wrongly levelling the charge of threatening him. He further states that as far as Sudhir Gupta is concerned, he claims himself more or less brother of the deceased for whose murder Vijay Laxmi and he are being charged and that, therefore, it could not be expected that his evidence could be tampered with.
(5) I have heard the counsel for the parties. In Bhagirat Singh Judged v. State of Gujarat, Air 1984 Supreme Court 372, it was held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Therefore, it is to be seen if there are any cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
(6) The learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail on the following two grounds: I)The dying declaration of the deceased is not coherent and consistent. ii) Jagat Narain Gujrati and his wife are living in a separate house and, therefore, they could not be normally expected to be present at the time of occurrence which was on the night between 8th and 9th August 1985.
The first ground did not appeal to me, because at the time of deciding the application for grant of bail, the merits or the value of the evidence should not be commented upon. Therefore, I felt inclined to issue a notice. In my opinion that matter will have to be gone into at the trial without any effect of the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court will decide independently the value of the dying declaration.
(7) The second ground relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in my opinion, cannot be said to be without any basis. However, it is made clear that this matter will also have to be gone into at the conclusion of the trial by the trial court.
(8) Now the question arises whether the allegations of tampering with evidence constitutes a cogent and overwhelming circumstance for the cancellation of the bail. In my opinion the affidavit filed by Jagat Narain Gujrati the effect that he is not tampering with the evidence and that there is a wrong allegation of tampering by the witnesses Bhola Shanker and Sudhir Gupta cannot be said to be without basis. Therefore, I do not find these allegations of tampering to be a cogent and overwhelming circumstance for the cancellation of the bail.
(9) Under these circumstances I do not cancel the bail of Jagat Narain Gujrati and his wife Smt. Vijay Laxmi and discharge the notice issued by me.
(10) Criminal Misc. (Main) 1093 of 1985 stands disposed of.
