Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No.
- 2402 of 2018 Applicant :- Kalam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail cancellation application has been moved by applicant-first informant to cancel the order dated 5.9.2018, granting bail to accused- opposite party no.2, Azad alias Ajju by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27757 of 2018 in Case Crime No.338 of 2017 under Sections 376-D I.P.C. and 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut.
The prosecution version as adumbrated in the F.I.R. lodged on 26.12.2017 by the applicant-first informant for an incident which is stated to have taken place on 21.12.2017 is that opposite party no.2 and three others had outraged the modesty of his minor daughter aged about 14 years and also prepared a video by griping by her hand and outraging her. The said video of outraging modesty was made viral by the accused. When it came to the knowledge of the applicant, an F.I.R. was lodged by him on 26.12.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix is a young girl of 14 years and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.12.2017 in which she had stated that besides other accused, opposite party no.2 had also collectively gang-raped her. Similar statement was made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also. She was subjected to medical examination on 29.12.2017 wherein though no injury was found on her person but her hymen was found torn and healed. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 was involved in ghastly crime of gang-rape on a young girl. Therefore, the bail granted by the Court based on the misleading submissions made by the counsel for the opposite party no.2, may be cancelled.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, I may record that the learned counsel for the applicant- first informant could not point out that after release from jail, opposite party no.2 has indulged in any such activity of tampering the witnesses or breach of any of conditions of bail. I may record that bail to opposite party no.2 has been allowed on merits as well as on the ground that co-accused, Mazid has been granted bail. The bail cancellation application moved by the applicant-informant against co-accused,Mazid has been dismissed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.2420 of 2018 vide today's order by considering the grounds taken by learned counsel for the applicant-informant.
Considering the overall fact and circumstances of the case, I find that only bald and vague averment has been made in paragraph-11 of the affidavit that bail was granted to opposite party no.2 by misleading submissions made on his behalf by counsel for opposite party no.2. It may be noted that the bail to opposite party no.2 was granted after hearing learned counsel for the informant, Sri J.B. Singh, Advocate. It is well settled by catena of decisions that parameters for grant of bail are entirely different from cancellation of bail already granted to an accused which has not been misused by him.
In the light of above, the instant bail cancellation application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 MN/-