This bail cancellation application was rejected. The court found that the nature of alleged suppression of criminal history by the applicant did not constitute a fit case for cancelling bail already granted.
The bail cancellation application was dismissed and the applicant remained on bail.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 4 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Sarita Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Muktesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
The present bail cancellation application has been filed by the applicant to cancel bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J. vide order dated 16.9.2019 in Case Crime No. 17 of 2016, u/s 302 IPC, P.S. Khairgarh, District Firozabad.
I may record that since Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J. has attained superannuation and therefore, I propose to hear the matter on merit.
Heard Sri Muktesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present bail cancellation application has been filed on the ground that the bail was obtained by the opposite party no. 2 by misrepresentation and suppression of fact especially the applicant-opposite party no.2 was stated to have no criminal history whereas he has involved in three criminal cases. In para11 of the affidavit criminal history of opposite party no. 2 has been explained, which is as under:
"(i) Case Crime no. 96 of 2016, P.S. Khairgarh, u/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act (State vs. Pradeep Kumar and others). (ii) Case Crime no. 0039, P.S. Khairgarh, u/s 174 IPC, (State vs. vijay and others). (iii) Case Crime no. 1930 of 2016, P.S. Kotwali, Shahjahanpur, u/s 3/25 Arms Act."
I may record that firstly nature of cases alleged against the opposite party no. 2 are not serious in nature and bail was granted by a detailed and well considered order in which the Court has observed as under:
"Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history."
The applicant-opposite party no. 2 has already been enlarged on bail about four months back and consideration for cancellation of bail entirely different from that of grant of bail, there is no allegation of any misuse of bail after his release on bail.
I do not find it to be a fit case for cancellation of bail of opposite party no. 2. The bail cancellation application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Dhirendra/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be cancelled due to alleged suppression of criminal history by the bail applicant.
Whether the alleged suppression of criminal history warrants cancellation of bail already granted.
If the findings of the lower court regarding adverse witnesses and the reasoning applied in bail grant should be evaluated for error.
Smt. Sarita Yadav
State of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
