Court No. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No.
- 19402 of 2015 Applicant :- State Of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Alok Kumar Jaiswal And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned AGA for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, and perused the record.
This bail cancellation application has been moved by the State to cancel bail granted vide order dated 15.4.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Bail Application No. 911 of 2015(Alok Kumar Jaiswal and others vs. State of U.P.) in pursuance of Case Crime No.280 of 2015 under Sections 147, 392, 307, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Colonelganj, District Allahabad whereby accused/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 namely, Alok Kumar Jaiswal, Abhineet Kumar Jaiswal and Amresh Kumar Jaiswal were enlarged on bail.
Ground stated in the bail cancellation application is that accused/opposite parties have continuously beaten up Dr. Rohit Gupta for 15 minutes due to which he sustained serious injuries on his vital parts of body which is visible in video footage recorded in C.C.T.V. camera. There was no any fault of Dr. Rohit Gupta and he has properly treated deceased Virendra Pratap Jaiswal who was father of accused persons. The best possible treatment at the level of doctor was provided to deceased Virendra Pratap Jaiswal but unfortunately he died because his condition was very serious and beyond control of human efforts.The accused/opposite parties are very influential and are very source-full which may affect trial and they would tamper evidences. All these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad while granting bail to the accused persons.
Learned counsel for accused/opposite parties opposed the bail cancellation application.
In the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiq, AIR 1987 SC 1613, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of sufficient materials to show that the accused was threatening the informant, bail granted cannot be cancelled. The order under this section may be passed on the following grounds:-
"1. When the accused is found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial.
2. When the persons on bail commits similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail.
3. When the accused has absconded and trial of the case gets delayed on that account.
4. When the offence so committed by the accused had created serious law and order problem in the society and accused had become a hazard on the peaceful living of the people.
5. If the High Court finds that the lower Court granting bail has exercised its judicial power wrongly.
6. If the High Court of Sessions Courts find that the accused has misused the privilege of bail.
7. If the life of the accused itself be in danger.
Ground of cancellation is related to facts which can not be adjudicated by this Court and it can be decided by the trial Court where the case is pending for trial.
Moreover, in view of law laid down in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (2014) 10 SCC 754, this application would lie before the Court of Session Judge, not before the High Court, hence application is disposed of with liberty to file fresh bail cancellation application before the trial Court and if it is filed, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same on merit in accordance with law expeditiously.
Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 P.P.