Court rejected an application to cancel bail granted to accused persons. The court held that since their status as successors was declared by an appellate court order, no illegality existed in the bail granting order, leading to the rejection of the cancellation plea.
The bail cancellation application was rejected.
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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 100 of 2023
Applicant :- Daya Kishan Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Rajbhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.
The instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant (complainant) with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite parties no.2 and 3 by the court concerned in Complaint Case No.6175 of 2018, under Sections 420,467,466,468,471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the complainant of the case and he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and others which was treated by the court concerned as criminal complaint and according to the complaint, by playing fraud opposite parties no.2 and 3 anyhow declared themselves as successor of Karm Singh although they were not his successor and, therefore, they committed offences under Sections 420, 467,466, 468,471 and 120B IPC but in spite of that court concerned granted bail to them and, therefore, bail granted to them be cancelled.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and submitted that from the perusal of the complaint itself it appears that by the order of appellate court opposite parties no.2 and 3 were declared successor of Karm Singh and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by court concerned
while granting bail to them and, therefore, the instant bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
From the perusal of the record it appears that opposite parties no.2 and 3 were granted bail by the court concerned in a complaint case and as per allegation they by playing fraud got declared themselves as successor of one Karm Singh although they were not his successor.
From the record, i.e., complaint it further reflects that they were declared successor of one Karm Singh on the basis of the order of appellate court, therefore, I find no illegality in the bail granting order dated 11.1.2023.
Accordingly, the instant bail cancellation application is rejected. Order Date :- 27.3.2023 SKM
Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to cancel bail granted to opposite parties who were declared successors of Karm Singh by an appellate court order.
Whether granting bail when the successorship was declared by an appellate court amounts to illegality.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Daya Kishan
State Of Uttar Pradesh
2 Others
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
