Allahabad High Court
Ambuj Bansal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 October, 2019
Author: Aniruddha Singh
Bench: Aniruddha Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 2224 of 2018 Applicant :- Ambuj Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kshitij Shailendra,Rajat Agarwal,Virpratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and Sri H.P. Gupta, learned AGA and perused the record.
This bail cancellation application has been moved by the applicant/complainant to cancel bail granted to opposite party Nos. 2 Jai Prakash Gupta vide order dated 9.3.2018 passed by High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19625 of 2017 in Case Crime No.743 of 2015 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submitted that third condition imposed by the Court in aforesaid order has been violated by opposite party No.2. He made several agreements to sale on the basis of forged will.
Learned AGA submitted that order passed by the Court is proper.
In the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiq, AIR 1987 SC 1613, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of sufficient materials to show that the accused was threatening the informant, bail granted cannot be cancelled.
In the case of Daulat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1998 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the order under this section may be passed on the following grounds:-
"1. When the accused is found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial.
2. When the persons on bail commits similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail.
3. When the accused has absconded and trial of the case gets delayed on that account.
4. When the offence so committed by the accused had created serious law and order problem in the society and accused had become a hazard on the peaceful living of the people.
5. If the High Court finds that the lower Court granting bail has exercised its judicial power wrongly.
6. If the High Court or Sessions Courts find that the accused has misused the privilege of bail.
7. If the life of the accused itself be in danger."
Moreover, in view of law laid down in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (2014) 10 SCC 754, this application would lie before the Court of Session Judge, not before the High Court.
From perusal of record and impugned order, it transpires that Opposite party No.2 Jai Prakash Gupta had no criminal history at the time of granting bail by the Court. Hence bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected. However, complainant has opportunity and liberty to move bail cancellation application before the trial Court. The trial Court is granted liberty to cancel bail if it finds violation of any condition mentioned in the order dated 9.3.2018.
The bail cancellation application is disposed off accordingly.
The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case according the section 309 Cr.P.C. on day to day basis, if there is no legal impediment.
Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.
Order Date :- 15.10.2019 P.P.