High Court refused to cancel bail granted in a cheating case, finding no infirmity in the lower court order and directing expedited trial.
Application dismissed; trial court directed to conclude trial within four months without unnecessary adjournment; accused directed to surrender passport.
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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 17 of 2020
Applicant :- Lallan Prasad Singh @ L.P. Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Usha Srivastava,Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
The instant application has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party no. 2 - Harpreet Singh Thakkar granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide order dated 4.12.2019 in Case Crime No. 86 of 2017 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, Police Station Indrpuram, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the opposite party no. 2 cheated several other persons and a number of cases have been registered against him, details whereof have mentioned in paragraph-13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail cancellation application. He further argued that the opposite party no. 2 has violated and breached the conditions of bail, thus he is not entitled for bail.
Sri Dinesh Goswami, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the bail cancellation application and submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has never violated any of the conditions of bail and the applicant herein has failed to point out any evidence in support of his contention, whereas he has barely made the averments of breaching the bail conditions as also the opposite party no. 2 is facing the trials in the cases mentioned by the applicant.
I have heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Goswami, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It is a settled proposition of law that the bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1997) 4 SCC 308 has observed that basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court.
Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, there seems to be no infirmity in the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 4.12.2019. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point any good ground for rejection of bail of opposite party no. 2. However, a direction is issued to the learned court below to conclude the trial positively within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order by conducting day to day hearing. The trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the party. The opposite party no. 2 is directed to surrender his Passport, if any, before the learned court below forthwith and will not undertake journey of abroad without leave of the concerned court.
The bail cancellation application is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Digamber
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail granted to opponent in cheating and criminal intimidation case be cancelled on alleged non-compliance of conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias BaliayReferred¶9
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1997) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Lallan Prasad Singh
State of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
