Dismissed
Amar Pal v. State of U.P. and Another
Allahabad HCBAILC/225/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION…
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 225 of 2019
Applicant :- Amar Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Singh
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This Bail Cancellation Application has been filed with the prayer to cancel/reject the bail order dated 26.06.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25283 of 2019 (Lekhraj Vs. State of U. P.) in case crime no. 0082 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 304, 34 IPC, Police Station Bakewar, district Fatehpur.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant/informant, Sri Manvendra Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the accused and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicant/informant submits that bail application was moved by the accused Lekhraj suppressing the criminal history. Referring to the documents annexed with the bail application it is also argued that accused clearly mentioned in the affidavit that there was no criminal history. It is further argued that the applicant had one criminal case being crime no. 198 of 2016, under Sections 354 (B), 504, 323, 452, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act in his account. Although he was on bail in that matter but false affidavit was filed before this Court. Explanation given by the deponent in the bail cancellation application is also not sufficient. Criminal history was suppressed with malafide intention. Accused committed the present offence misusing the bail granted in the aforesaid criminal case. Thus, prayer was made to cancel the bail granted to the accused on 26.06.2019.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 argued that since all the male members of the family concerned were in jail, deponent of the bail application is brother-in-law who was residing in district Unnao, he was not aware about the pendency of the crime no. 198 of 2016, therefore, he could not mention the specific details of the criminal history. He has not suppressed the criminal history of the accused maliciously. It is further argued that accused has not misused the bail granted in the present matter. Bail order dated 26.04.2019 was passed on merits. Opportunity had also been given to the prosecution and it also did not disclose the criminal history of the accused. Thus, prayer made in the present application be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and going through the entire record, although in the
affidavit deponent, who is the brother-in-law of the accused has not disclosed the details of the criminal history yet the bail order dated 26.06.2019 was passed after affording opportunity to the prosecution and it also did not disclose the criminal history of the accused. Since the accused was on bail in crime no. 198 of 2016, there is no misuse of the bail order dated 26.06.2019, grounds disclosed in the affidavit of the bail cancellation application are not sufficient to cancel the bail order dated 26.06.2019. Bail cancellation application moved by the informant, for the aforesaid reasons, is not liable to be allowed.
Bail cancellation application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 19.2.2020 Sachdeva
Amar Pal
State of U.P.
Om Prakash-VII J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court