Allahabad High Court
Bhola @ Mata Charan vs State Of U.P. & Others on 3 August, 2010
Author: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11772 of 2009 Petitioner :- Bhola @ Mata Charan Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- N.D. Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Shesh Kumar Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is an application for cancellation of bail order dated 25.3.2009 granted by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, District Bhadohi in Case Crime No.21 of 1992, under Sections 467, 468, 419, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC, P.S. Gyanpur, District Bhadohi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was beneficiary by transfer of the land belonging to the informant and by impersonance he get the sale deed executed and registered. The applicant filed application before the High Court but he could not get relief. However, he was absconding for about 17 years in spite of that court below committed error in granting bail merely on the ground that accused opposite party no.2 was aged about 65 years. However, age of the opposite party no.3 was not considered. No proof regarding the age was filed hence bail of the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the accused opposite party no.2 and 3 submitted that the applicant has filed the identi-card issued by the Election Commission. According to that applicant was aged about 65 years on the date of moving of application because 1.1.2006 he was aged about 61 years.
As far as accused opposite party no.3 is concerned, he was aged about 56 years hence on the date of application accused opposite party no.2 was aged about 65 years and opposite party no.3 was aged about 61 years.
As far as sale deed is concerned, civil proceeding is pending in between the parties . There is no allegation of misuse of liberty of bail.
Now, in view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that the bail application was allowed on 25.3.2009 though the Magistrate was required to consider the fact that the applicant was absconding for about 17 years but considering the aforesaid fact, now I am not inclined to cancel the bail at this stage.
Accordingly, present application is hereby rejected.
The trial court will conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. However, if accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 do not cooperate with the trial, the trial court will be free to cancel the bail and take them into custody.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010 Pramod