Court No. - 58
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No.
- 198 of 2019 Applicant :- Hakdu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant along with statement of victim, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the victim, Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed, under section 439(2) Cr.P.C, for cancellation of bail order dated 2.3.2019, passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Chandauli, in Crl. Misc. IIIrd Bail Application No.382 of 2019 ( Dabloo Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P) arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2018, under sections 363,376, 504 I.P.C and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(1)(Da) (Dha) SC/ST Act, P.S Chakiya, District Chandauli.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a heinous offence for rape was committed by the opposite party No.2 Dabloo Rajbhar, wherein after investigation the charge sheet was submitted and the statement of victim has also been recorded.He has further submitted that on previous occasion, the bail application filed by the respondent No.2, Dabloo Rajbhar, was rejected by the trial court on 22.11.2018 and 14.2.2019 but on third occasion, the application for bail on the same facts and circumstances, the bail application of the applicant, was allowed without assigning any valid and legal reason. The impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction, which is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A submits that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is valid and effective as the bail of co- accused was allowed by this Hon'ble Court and the victim in her examination has not supported the version of the prosecution.
From perusal of record as well as impugned order, it transpires that although on two earlier occasions, the bail application of opposite party No.2, Dabloo Rajbhar, was rejected by the trial court but on third occasions, when the trial court was considering bail application of opposite party No.2, noted the fact that the bail application of co-accused Anil Rajbhar was already been allowed by this Court and in examination before the trial court, the victim had specifically stated in cross examination that no rape was committed with her.
In view of the said fact, the trial court has allowed for bail of opposite party No.2, Dabloo Rajbhar and enlarged him on bail.
In my view, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This application for cancellation of aforesaid impugned order passed by the trial court, is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 G.S