Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Mahmood Ali (Ex-Mlc) S/O Waheed on 2 March, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 72 of 2023 Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Mahmood Ali (Ex-Mlc) S/O Waheed Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Indra Bhan Yadav Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The present application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.9.2022 in Case Crime No.195 of 2022, under Sections 376D and 506 IPC, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur.
2. Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA submits that the accused-respondent has criminal history of nineteen cases, but the same has not been considered by the learned trial court while enlarging him on bail. He further submits that the criminal history is an important factor, which must be considered while considering the bail application of an accused. He, therefore, submits that since the important aspect of long criminal history of the accused-respondent of nineteen cases was not considered by the learned trial court, the order impugned granting bail to the accused-respondent is liable to be set aside and the bail granted to him by the learned trial court is to be cancelled.
3. On the other hand, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that neither form the order passed by the learned trial court enlarging the accused-respondent on bail nor from the affidavit filed before this Court in support of the bail cancellation application, it gets reflected that the criminal history of the accused-respondent was brought to the notice of the learned trial court. He further submits that the accused-respondent after having been enlarged on bail, has not misused the liberty granted to him and he has not come out of the jail and he is still in jail in respect of the other offence. He also submits that parameters for grant of bail and the cancellation of bail aredifferent. Unless and until it is pointed out that the accused-respondent after having been enlarged on bail has misused the liberty of bail granted to him in any manner, the order granting bail to him should not be cancelled. He, therefore, submits that the present application for cancellation of bail has no merit and is liable to be rejected.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It appears that the criminal history of the accused-respondent was not brought to the notice of the learned trial court at the time of hearing of the bail application. This is a new fact and if the prosecution feels that the said material fact should have been placed before the learned trial court as it could not have been placed before it for any reason, the prosecution may move an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-respondent before the same court which has granted the bail to the accused-respondent. Since the criminal history of the accused-respondent was not placed before the learned trial court at the time of granting bail to him, this Court would not like to consider the same in this bail cancellation application.
6. In view thereof, the present application is disposed of with liberty to the State to move an appropriate application before the concerned trial court by bringing on record the criminal history of the accused-respondent. If such an application is moved, the learned trial court should consider the said application and decide it in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023 Rao/-