Union Of India vs Gajendra Singh Parmar S/O Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3881 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 122/2020
Union Of India, Through P.P.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
Gajendra Singh Parmar S/o Shri Than Singh Parmar, Aged About
43 Years, R/o Daniwara Road Radawa Bali Distt. Pali Raj. Holder
Of Passport No U4162612
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendar Singh, through VC, for Mr. Hridayesh Singh, for complainant.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

18/08/2021

The application under Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of

bail granted to the accused-petitioner under Section 439 CrPC by

the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic

offences), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, vide order dated 01.12.2020,

has been filed by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while

extending the accused respondent benefit of bail, learned trial

Court did not consider the notification No.36/2015-2020 dated

18.12.2019. Relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

(MANU/SC/0483/2021) decided on 20.07.2021, he submitted that

since the order impugned is based on irrelevant consideration, the

same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the bail extended

to the accused respondent deserves to be cancelled.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the

prayer and submitted that the order impugned does not suffer

(2 of 2) [CRLBC-122/2020]

from any illegality or perversity warranting its cancellation and

hence, the bail cancellation application deserves to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that accused

respondent has been extended benefit of bail taking into

consideration the relevant factors. It has been observed by the

learned trial Court that the accused respondent did not have any

criminal antecedents and he was in judicial custody since long.

The weight of the prohibited article recovered from his possession

was also taken into consideration while extending benefit of bail.

The accused respondent was extended benefit of bail vide order

dated 01.12.2020 and it has not been a case of petitioner that he

has tampered with the evidence, has tried to influence the

investigation in any manner or has indulged in offence of similar

nature again. It is well established principle of law that parameters

for cancellation of bail stand altogether on different altar than the

consideration for grant of bail and benefit of bail granted by a

competent Court should not be cancelled by a higher Court in a

mechanical manner unless the order impugned stands vitiated on

account of being influenced by irrelevant consideration, perversity

or non-application of mind. This Court does not find any

irregularity or perversity in the order dated 01.12.2020 extending

the accused respondent benefit of bail and hence, the bail

cancellation application is dismissed devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

DANISH USMANI /03

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)