BAC/8/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 1906 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

BAC/8/2025 on 12 August, 2025

                                                                              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

             Office Notes,
            reports, orders
            or proceedings
SL.   Dat
             or directions
No.    e
            and Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                                                                              2025:UHC:7108

                              BAC No.8 of 2025

                              Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for the Applicant through VC.

2. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State/1.

3. Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/victim - Mr. Sanjay Raturi, submits that in the judgment and order dated 11.03.2025 passed in 2nd Bail Application No.101 of 2024 and other connected matters, the name of "Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the victim", has wrongly been mentioned, and prays that the same may be corrected as "Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for the victim". The said prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the Respondents. The prayer seems to be innocuous, the same be corrected as in the aforesaid judgment dated 11.03.2025, the name of Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel is added in place of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the victim.

5. The present bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant is with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent No.2 in FIR No.31 of 2023, under sections 302, 120B, 201 and 34 of IPC, Police Station Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Second Bail Application No.101 of 2024 and other connected matters.

6. As per the bail cancellation application, there are no new grounds on which, this Court may consider the said bail cancellation application. Whatever the contentions are being made are touching upon the points which may be bracketed as a review, and ultimately conveying a message that the said bail application order was not rightly passed and there were many legal aspects, which were not being considered.

7. In view of this Court, the contentions regarding the cancellation of the bail order are legally sound considering the jurisdiction of this Court whereby this Court cannot review its own order or judgment as per provisions of law. If the learned counsel for the Applicant/victim has any objections regarding the disposal of the said bail application, in which the Respondent No.2 was granted bail, he has a remedy of moving to a larger Bench or to a higher court.

8. In view thereof, the bail cancellation application is accordingly rejected.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 12.08.2025 Nitesh/