Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chand vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78269
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 765 of 2023
Applicant :- Mahesh Chand
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Prasad,Rakesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Tripathi I
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This bail cancellation application was filed in the year 2023 for cancelling bail of accused passed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2022 in Case Crime No. 1023 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat.
2. At the outset, Sri Rakesh Tripathi, learned counsel for accused refers that in similar circumstance, applicant has filed an application for cancelling bail granted to co-accused wherein after taking note of paragraph 17 and 18 of said application, coordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the bail cancellation application and for reference, said order is quoted below -:
?6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the allegation as in paragraph nos. 17 and 18 of the affidavit in support of bail cancellation application which has been pressed and argued does not find support from any of the documents. Even the order sheet of the trial court showing any such threat during trial to the informant or witnesses has not been produced, placed or relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that there is any threat to any of the persons by the opposite party no. 2. In view of the same, no ground exists to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2.?
3. Learned counsel for applicant Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, Advocate refers paragraphs 15 to 18 of present application which are quoted below -:
?15. That it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant moved an application on 14.12.2022 before the incharge of Police Station - Baraut, District - Baghpat, it is stated therein that the opposite party No.2 and other co-accused Deepak, Vinay temper to the witnesses as well as the applicant in this regard the concerned police of Police Station Baraut District Baghpat challan to the opposite party No.2 under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. on 14.12.2022. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, the photo copy of application alongwith receipt dated 14.12.2022 as well as certified copy of challani report dated 14.12.2022 are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 10 to this affidavit.
16. That it is further stated here that the applicant/ informant lodged the first information report against opposite party No.2 and other co-accused on 06.10.2023 which has been registered as Case Crime No.712 of 2023 under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Baraut, District - Baghpat, it is alleged that the opposite party No.2 and other co-accused threaten to kill her if given the statement against me in Session Trial No.50 of 2022, District Baghpath, the detail prosecution version is mentioned in the first information report dated 06.10.2023. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a photo copy of the first information report dated 06.10.2023 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.11 to this affidavit.
17. That it is relevant to mention here that the opposite party No.2 disobedient the terms and condition of the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4493 of 2022 (Rajeev Vs. State of U.P.).
18. That it is further stated here that the trial going on at stage of evidence after threaten by the opposite party No.2 and other co-accused release on bail by this Hon'ble Court to not give the evidence before the learned Session Trial Court create situation by the opposite party No.2 and other co-accused. The bail of the opposite party No.2 granted by this Hon'ble Court liable to be cancelled.?
4. It is evident from above referred paragraphs that para 17 and 18 are same as referred in above referred order.
5. In view of aforesaid facts, no circumstance exists to take a different view as taken by coordinate Bench while rejecting bail cancellation application of co-accused and this Court also takes note that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online SC 187, no case is made out for cancelling bail of accused.
6. Accordingly, bail cancellation application is rejected.
7. Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
8. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
N. Sinha
