Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 2261 of 2018 Applicant :- Udai Bhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey,Tapeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarvesh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri M.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The present bail cancellation application has been filed by the applicant- Udai Bhan to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2- Kuldeep Singh in pursuance to the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Allahabad in Bail Application No.1608 of 2018, "State Vs. Kuldeep Singh", arising out of case crime no.258 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.
3. The learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to opposite party no.2 upon consideration of the material brought before that court. In that regard, it has been specifically observed in the bail order, there was some delay in lodging the F.I.R., inasmuch as, the incident is of the date 02.03.2018, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 03.03.2018. There was no evidence of injury available in the record and in any case, there was no fire arm injury suffered. Further, no arrest had been made from the spot and the accused persons did not have any criminal history. As for other accused absconding it remains a factor to be considered when their bail applications are filed.
4. In such facts, the learned court below has granted bail considering the fact that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit, the accused persons had wholly demolished the construction raised peacefully by the applicant and that certain other co-accused persons are absconding. Therefore, the present bail application should be cancelled.
6. Insofar as, the opposite party no.2 is concerned, nothing has been shown to establish either any criminal history or that he has intimidated any witness or tampered with evidence. Further, no observation made in bail order has been shown to be perverse or otherwise unjustified.
7. Accordingly, the present bail cancellation application lacks merit and is rejected.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Saif