Allahabad High Court
Narendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 August, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160980 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 492 of 2023 Applicant :- Narendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sudhanshu holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. This is an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 Vijay vide order dated 1.6.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Amroha in Bail Application No.1403 of 2023 (Vijay Vs. State of U.P.).
4. The present bail cancellation application has been filed by the first informant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a solitary argument before the Court while placing para no.14 of the affidavit filed in support of bail cancellation application. The said paragraph reads as under:-
"14. That it is pertinent to mention here that after release on bail the accused opposite party no.2 came to the house of the applicant and threatened him and his family with dire consequences for which the applicant approached to S.P. Amroha as well as District Magistrate, Amroha mentioning the entire facts in the application with prayer to take necessary action against the accused opposite party no.2. True copy of the application along with postal receipt is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit."
6. It is argued that the application to the S.P., Amroha and District Magistrate, Amroha has been sent by post mentioning the entire facts regarding threat extended by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant and his family members. As such the bail of the opposite party no.2 be cancelled and he be directed to be taken into custody and sent to jail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer as prayed by learned counsel for the applicant and argued that his instructions in the present matter are that the applicant has not approached the concerned police station with any such application and there is no report as alleged.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, it is evident that the opposite party no.2 has been granted bail vide order dated 1.6.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Amroha. The sole ground as taken in the bail cancellation application for praying cancellation of bail is that the opposite party no.2/accused is threatening the first informant and his family members. There is no application filed by the first informant before the trial court which could have enabled the trial court to look into the matter and if need be pass appropriate orders in consonance of the Witness Protection Scheme. The allegation in para no.14 are too vague and also perusal of the said application goes to show that the contents therein are also too vague as the same do not even speak of the date and time of the alleged occurrence.
9. In the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana : (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Apex Court held that :
?4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.?
10. After examining the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the law on the subject and in view of the above legal position, I am of the view that no good ground is made out to cancel the bail of the opposite party no.2 in Case Crime No.144 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Adampur, District Amroha.
11. The present bail cancellation application is hereby rejected at this stage.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Gaurav Kuls