Disposed

Smt. Savita Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2018BAILC/2481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a bail cancellation application filed by the applicant, noting that such applications under Section 437 CrPC (implied jurisdiction) lie with the Court of Session, not the High Court. The court granted liberty to file anew before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to file afresh bail cancellation application before the trial Court.

Smt. Savita Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 2481 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Savita Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This bail cancellation application has been moved by the applicant/complainant to cancel bail granted vide order dated 22.9.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Bail application No.4070 of 2018 in Case Crime No. 122 of 2018, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Meja, District Allahabad whereby opposite party No. 2 has been enlarged on bail.

¶6

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and Sri Mayank Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this bail cancellation application may be disposed off with liberty to file afresh bail cancellation application before lower Court.

¶8

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.

¶9

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:-

¶10

"1-When the accused is found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial.

¶11

2- When the persons on bail commits similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail.

¶12

3-When the accused has absconded and trial of the case gets delayed on that account.

¶13

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.

¶14

5-If the High Court finds that the lower Court granting bail has exercised its judicial power wrongly.

¶15

6-If the High Court or Sessions Courts find that the accused has misused the privilege of bail.

¶16

7-If the life of the accused itself be in danger."

¶17

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 applicant files bail cancellation application, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same on merit in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶18

Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.11.2018 A. Singh

Smt. Savita Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Nandan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Alias Santosh Soni Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Vipin @ Shempu Vs State of U.P.