ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਇਤਰਾਜ ਯੋਗ ਵਿਵਹਾਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਉਦਾਹਰਨਾਂ (Instances of objectionable behaviour of accused)

ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਇਤਰਾਜ ਯੋਗ ਵਿਵਹਾਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਉਦਾਹਰਨਾਂ

(Instances of objectionable behavior of accused)

 1. ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਤੇ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਅਦ ਦੇ ‘ਇਤਰਾਜ਼ਯੋਗ ਵਿਵਹਾਰ’ ਦੀਆਂ ਉਦਾਹਰਨਾਂ:
ੳ) ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਜ਼ੁਰਮਾਂ ਵਰਗੇ ਹੋਰ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਕਰਨਾ
ਅ) ਚਲ ਰਹੀ ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਖਲ ਅੰਦਾਜ਼ੀ
ੲ) ਗਵਾਹੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਛੇੜ-ਛਾੜ ਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਯਤਨ
ਸ) ਮੁਦਈ ਜਾਂ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਮਕੀਆਂ
ਹ) ਭਗੌੜਾ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਯਤਨ
ਕ) ਆਪਣੇ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤੀਏ ਦੀ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਯਤਨ
ਖ) ਕਿਸੇ ਬਾਹਰਲੇ ਦੇਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਭੱਜ ਜਾਣ ਦੀ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾ

ਨੋਟ: ਮਾਣਯੋਗ ਸੁਪਰੀਮਕੋਰਟ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਅਗਾਂਹ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਸਪੱਸ਼ਟ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਕਿ ਉੱਪਰ ਦਰਜ ਵਿਵਹਾਰ ਕੇਵਲ ਕੁਝ ਉਦਾਹਰਨਾਂ ਹੀ ਹਨ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਹੋਰ ਕਾਰਨ ਵੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ।

Case : Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra 1992 Cri.L.J.3712 (SC – FB)

Para “11. ….. As stated in Raghubir Singh’s case (AIR 1987 SC 149) the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.”

2. ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਖਲ ਅੰਦਾਜ਼ੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਨਿਆਂਸੰਗਤ ਅਧਾਰ ਹੈ।

Case : State through CBI Vs.Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 Crl.L.J. 4149 (SC)

Para “26. The High Court has failed to deal with the vast material placed by the CBI which clearly indicated that the accused has, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case.

27. The statement of Anil Aggarwal, SSP Lucknow is revealing and in our opinion the High Court on this statement alone should have rejected the bail and, in any event, it is sufficient to allow the present appeal. ..”

3. ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਮਕੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਨਿਆਂਸੰਗਤ ਅਧਾਰ ਹੈ।

Case (i) : State through CBI Vs.Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 Crl.L.J. 4149 (SC)

Para “26. The High Court has failed to deal with the vast material placed by the CBI which clearly indicated that the accused has, at all material times, tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or create obstacles in the path of investigation officers and derail the case.”

Case (ii) : Chuni Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 Crl.L.J. 4474 (P & H – HC, DB)

Para “8. In our opinion, the allegations made by the applicant which are supported by an affidavit, establish that the appellants are misusing the liberty granted to them ever since they have been enlarged on bail. We, therefore, order that the bail granted to the appellants is hereby cancelled and they shall be re-arrested and committed to judicial custody immediately.”