The high court held that the bail cancellation application was not maintainable as jurisdiction lay with the Session Judge rather than the High Court, disposing of the matter with liberty to file afresh before the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 11942 of 2014
Applicant :- State Of U.P. Opposite Party :- Arvind And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Onkar Singh
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Notice has been issued to opposite parties but none is present on behalf of opposite party no. 1 Arvind.
This bail cancellation application has been moved by the State to cancel bail of opposite parties i.e. Arvind, Rahul alias Pintoo, Prahlad, Anil, Pramod Kumar and Sachin granted vide order dated 1.11.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Bail application Nos. 4267 of 2013, 4384 of 2013, 4578 of 2013 and 5011 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2013, under Sections 396, 436 I.P.C., Police Station Fugana, District Muzaffar Nagar whereby opposite parties have been enlarged on bail.
Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State/applicant, Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and perused the record.
Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State/applicant submitted that bail of opposite parties was granted by trial court is illegal and summarily. F.I.R. was lodged against 12 named and 20-25 unknown accused persons. Offence committed by opposite parties are grievous in nature.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that they are not named in the F.I.R. The name of opposite parties was disclosed by first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. later on. Nothing was recovered from the possession/pointing out of opposite parties. Order passed by learned trial court, is just and legal.
Learned counsel for the State/applicant also submitted that this bail cancellation application may be disposed off with liberty to file afresh bail cancellation application before lower Court.
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, hence application is disposed off with liberty to file afresh bail cancellation application before the trial Court and if State/applicant files bail cancellation application, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same on merit in accordance with law expeditiously.
Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.
Order Date :- 17.12.2018 A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail cancellation application filed by the State in the High Court is maintainable given that jurisdiction lies with the Sessions Judge.
What grounds are permissible for canceling bail granted by a Sessions Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shahzad Hasan Khan v. IshtiqReferred¶11
Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiq, AIR 1987 SC 1613 · Who else cites this
Daulat Ram v. State of HaryanaReferred¶13
Daulat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1998 · Who else cites this
Abdul Basit @ Raju and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and anotherApplied¶21
Abdul Basit @ Raju and others vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (2014) 10 SCC 754 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State Of U.P.
Arvind
Rahul alias Pintoo
Prahlad
Anil
Pramod Kumar
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
