The High Court dismissed a bail cancellation application filed by the first informant against an order granting bail to two accused persons. The court found the bail order well considered and lacking merit for interference.
The bail cancellation application is dismissed.
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. - 267 of 2021
Applicant :- Mewa Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Shree Ram Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri U.P. Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.
This bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mewa Ram who is first informant of this case, against the order dated 07.5.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1085 of 2021, CNR No. UPBN01002209-2021 (Shyamwati Devi and another vs. State of U.P.) by which the opposite party nos. 2/Shyamwati and 3/Babi Rani@Ananya have been granted bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2019, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Bisauli, District Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that while granting bail to the opposite party no. 2/Shyamwati and 3/Babi Rani@Ananya, the trial court has not appreciated the matter in true perspective. It is argued that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the only two persons named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against them. It is argued that even there is a suicide note which would go to show that the accused/opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are involved in the present case. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted which would also go to show prima facie that the accused persons are involved in the present case. The applicant is the first informant of the present case.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and has argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order and even there is no misuse of bail by the accused/opposite party nos. 2 and 3. It is further argued that the said suicide note was sent to the forensic expert for comparison and his opinion, but the report as received is inconclusive. The expert demanded some more documents of admitted writing which have been sent but still his report is awaited.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing
the record, it is evident that the bail order passed by the trial court is well considered order. This Court vide judgement and order dated 06.3.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 77 of 2020, Subhash Chandra Jha Vs. State of U.P. and Another , has reiterated the law on cancellation of bail.
Looking to the law as reiterated in the said judgement and order and also the grounds and facts of the matter, it is evident that the present bail cancellation application does not, in any manner, satisfy the requirements of cancellation of bail of the accused persons/opposite party nos. 2/Shyamwati and 3/Babi Rani@Ananya. The discretion as exercised by the trial court vide order dated 07.5.2021 is just and proper and not demanding any interference whatsoever.
The present bail cancellation application is thus devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Office shall communicate this order to the court concerned within ten days from today.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 4.12.2021 Naresh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order granting bail to the accused persons as the cinema informant.
Whether the grounds raised for cancellation of bail satisfy the stringent requirements of cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. and Another vs. Subhash Chandra JhaReferred¶10
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 77 of 2020, Subhash Chandra Jha Vs. State of U.P. and Another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mewa Ram
Shyamwati
Babi Rani @ Ananya
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
