Dismissed

Smt. Archana Jain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023BAILC/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail cancellation petition, the Allahabad High Court rejected the applicant's plea to cancel the bail of three accused. The court held that an NCR alleging threats and vehicle damage was insufficient grounds for cancellation and noted the application's three-year pendency as a factor against granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Bail cancellation application was rejected and deemed to be devoid of merits.

Smt. Archana Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170970

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 74 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Archana Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alka Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Case called out. None appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4. However, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

Heard Sri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail cancellation application has been filed by the applicant to cancel the bail of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Case Crime No. 591 of 2013, under Sections 328, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is bail cancellation application filed by the applicant with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 by the court concerned on the ground that after release on bail opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are continuously threatening the applicant i.e. informant of the case and in this regard an application was moved by the applicant before the police and a NCR was also lodged against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 12.01.2019 and from the perusal of the NCR, it appears that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 damaged the vehicle of the applicant, therefore, it is apparent from the record that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are misusing the liberty of bail granted to them, therefore, their bail be cancelled.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and submitted that merely on the basis of NCR, which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit it cannot be said that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are pressurizing the applicant and on such ground bail granted to them should not be cancelled and if on such plea bail granted to accused persons is cancelled then this

¶11

Court will open the Pandora Box, therefore, instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

The instant bail cancellation application has been moved by the applicant, who is complainant of the case, on the ground that opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 after granting bail continuously threatening her and they also damaged her car. I find force in the argument advanced by learned AGA that on such ground bail granted to accused persons should not be cancelled.

¶14

The law is settled that it is easy to reject the bail application but it is very difficult to cancel the bail already granted and for cancellation of bail there must be cogent and overwhelming reasons available on record, which are totally missing in the present matter.

¶15

Further, present bail cancellation application is pending since 2020 i.e. for last three years. In my view after three years there is hardly any occasion to cancel the bail granted to opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 specially when there is no allegation against them that even till date they are pressuring the applicant.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merits and is hereby rejected.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 AK Pandey

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Archana Jain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Archana Jain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadvendra Alias Mona Vs State of U.P.

Gunakar Urf Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Chaubey @ Sabloo Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Faujdar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajkumari Devi Vs State of U.P.