Dismissed

Mahipal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024BAILC/251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail cancellation application, holding that the Sessions Court passed a reasoned order for granting bail and that mere criminal history of the accused does not warrant cancellation without cogent reasons.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahipal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128722

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 251 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahipal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Vipin Chandra Lal, learned Advocate filed his power on behalf of O.P. No. 3, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vipin Chandra Lal, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 and Sri Manav Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking set aside the bail granted to O.P. No. 3 vide order dated 01.06.2024 passed by Sesion Judge, Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 377 of 2024 arising out of case crime no. 192 of 2024 under Sections 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Saini, District- Kaushambi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the bail cancellation application and applicant is the informant of the case. He further submitted that applicant/informant was injured of the case and without considering the fact that O.P. No. 3 caused injury to him, in routine manner the court concerned enlarged him on bail. He further submitted that even from the X-ray report of the applicant/informant, it reflects that he sustained fracture of rib. He further submitted that O.P. No. 3 was also having criminal history of two cases but in spite of that, he has been released on bail by the court concerned, therefore, considering the fact that the court concerned illegally granted bail to O.P. No. 3, the bail granted to him be cancelled.

¶10

Learned AGA however, conceded that as per allegation, O.P. No. 3 caused injury to the applicant/informant but he further submits, from the record, it reflects that injury report of the applicant i.e. informant is not on record and with a very detailed order O.P. No. 3 was enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 submitted that with a very detailed and reasoned order, O.P. No. 3 has been released on bail after considering the fact that even medical report of the applicant/informant is not on record, therefore, there is no illegality in the bail granting order passed by the court concerned and therefore, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and it should 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 filed by the applicant on the ground that without application of mind in casual manner, O.P. No. 3 has been released on bail by the court concerned and there is allegation that he caused injury to the applicant and X-ray report of the injured also corroborates the allegation levelled against him but from perusal of the record, it reflects that with a very detailed order, O.P. No. 3 was enlarged on bail after considering the fact that even medical report of the injured i.e. applicant is not on record, therefore, it cannot be said that without any application of mind, the court concerned enlarge O.P. No. 3 on bail.

¶14

Further, however, O.P. No. 3 is having criminal history of two cases but law is settled that ordinarily if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed.

¶15

Law is also settled that it is easy to reject a bail application but it is very difficult to cancel a bail already granted to the accused person and for cancellation of bail, very cogent and over-whelming reasons must be present on record but in the present matter, I do not find any such cogent and over-whelming reason, on the basis of which the bail granted to O.P. No. 3 may be cancelled.

¶16

Therefore, in my view, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 KK Patel

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahipal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Verma @ Sanjay vs State of Up and Another

Indrajeet and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Rajkumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobhit Singh Alias Shiv Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Beena vs State of U.P.

Gulzar vs State of Up