Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Balmik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2015
1
M.Cr.C. No.4113/2015
(Vinod Balmiki v. State of MP)
.10.2015
Shri Arun Pateriya, Advocate for applicant.
Shri B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for Respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Jagran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/State. Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The present bail application u/S. 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2014 in shape of M.Cr.C. No.8928/2014 passed in favour of respondent No.2.
The sole ground raised herein for invoking power u/S.439(2) Cr.P.C. is that the bail order passed in favour of respondent No.2 on 31.10.2014 is erroneous as the Court while granting bail wrongly appreciated the factual matrix involved in the offence bearing Crime No.196/2014.
It is further contended that respondent no.2 is a person of criminal proclivity, effect of which was not taken into account while granting bail on 31.10.2014.
Perusal of the grounds raised in this application u/S.439(2) Cr.P.C. is that no facts and circumstances of breach of any of the conditions subject to which the bail order was passed, have been alleged.
All the grounds raised for seeking cancellation of bail relate to incidents and facts and circumstances which pertain to the period anterior in point of time to passing of the order of bail on 31.10.2014 in favour of respondent No.2.
The Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754 has clearly stated that power of cancellation of bail u/S. 439(2) Cr.P.C. is distinct in its nature than that of grant of bail and thus requires 2 M.Cr.C. No.4113/2015 different considerations of comparatively stricter yardstick.
The Apex Court has also laid down that for cancellation of bail the cause raised must relate to incident which occurred subsequent to the grant of bail which is sought to be canceled and not prior to the same.
In the instant case, petitioner has failed to point out any incident of breach of terms and conditions of the order of grant of bail or any other circumstance which arose subsequent to the grant of bail which is sought to be canceled.
In view of above, no case for bail is made out, for the time being.
Consequently, the present bail application u/S.439(2) Cr.P.C. stands rejected.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge .10.2015 pk