Court No. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No.
- 36559 of 2017 Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai,Avinash Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
The date was fixed on 16.02.2018 on that date the learned counsel for the applicant has sent illness slip hence the date was fixed for today peremptorily and the learned counsel for the applicant is absent.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail cancellation application has been filed against the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge,Muzaffarnagar, in Bail Application No. 3130 of 2017 and Case Crime No. 207 of 2017, under Sections 323, 324 and 308 I.P.C, P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar against opposite party no.2.
From the perusal of the record it shows that the main ground taken by the applicant is that learned Session Judge by passing the impugned order dated 01.09.2017 wrongly recorded the finding that the case under Section 308 I.P.C. is not made out against the opposite party no.2.
It has also been explained that between the parties only quarrel was made and there was no injury found on the body of the injured. There was no criminal history against the accused. Hence the impugned order was passed.
Perusal of the order it is evident that the fact narrated by the learned Session Judge was based on the argument advanced by the counsel for the accused.
From the perusal of the record I found no ground to cancel the bail of opposite party nos. 2.
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.
In the case of Daulat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1998 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 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 or 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 A. Tripathi