Court No. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No.
- 28658 of 2015 Applicant :- State Of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Sonveer @ Sendi And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh (Govt.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rajesh Kumar Kanojia,Swetashwa Agarwal,Tushar Oberoi
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned AGA for the applicant and Sri Tushar Oberoi, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 and perused the record.
This bail cancellation application has been moved by the State to cancel bail granted vide order dated 21.1.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, IInd, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case Crime No. 349 of 2013 under Section 364-A IPC, Police Station Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby accused/opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 namely, Sonveer alias Sendi, Yashveer, Sohil, Vivek Tyagi, Vinod Chikara and Pratap were granted bail.
Learned AGA submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order which shows that order was passed without applying judicial mind and without examining evidence in the case diary as well as evidence recorded in the Court. It is further submitted that accused/opposite parties are men of criminal nature and committed heinous crime, and Rs.80,21,500/- in cash, car used in commission of crime, police dress & carbon pistol were recovered from the possession of accused. Hence bail granted by the Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Perused the record. By the impugned order bail was granted by the Court below on the basis of evidence of complainant P.W.1 Mahendra Kumar Agrawal and abducted Akash Agarwal, P.W.2 who were examined before the Court; they could not identify the accused persons before the Court, they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Apart from this, there were grounds that accused were not named in the FIR ; they have been implicated on their confessional statement before the police showing forged arrest; some of them are famous national level players; false recovery was shown from them having no criminal history; at the time of incident they were not present on the spot and many other grounds were shown.
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.
I do not find any ground to cancel bail granted to opposite party Nos. 1 to 6. The bail cancellation application is disposed off 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.