Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1082 (ALL)

RAM SEVAK GUPTA : STATE OF U P v. STATE OF U P

2001-11-27

BHAGWAN DIN

body2001
BHAGWAN DIN, J. List revised. Learned Counsel Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, for the petitioner Ram Sevak Gupta, Learned A. G. A. representing State of U. P. is also present; but none response for the opposite parties 2 and 3. Heard. 2. The opposite party No. 2 Lal Bahadur and opposite party No. 3 Rakesh Kumar were granted bail by this Court on 15-1-99 and 12-1-99 respectively in Criminal Misc. Case No. 368 (B) of 1999 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 260 (B) of 1999 in Case Crime No. 203 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 506 I. P. C. police station Chinhat, District Lucknow. 3. Complainant Ram Sevak Gupta, therefore, moved an application under sub-section (2) of Section 439 Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail of the opposite parties. This Court by order doted 15-1-2001 allowed the petition and cancelled the bail of the opposite parties 2 and 3 with the direction that the opposite parties 2 and 3 shall be taken into custody and on being taken into custody their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall stand discharged. 4. The Sessions Judge, Lucknow was also directed to comply within three days. In compliance of the above order, the opposite parties 2 and 3 were taken into custody and sent to Jail. Then they moved an application through Shri B. M. Sahai, Advocate for recalling the above order dated 15-1-2001. This application was allowed vide order dated 10-4-2001 passed on the application of opposite parties 2 and 3 who were allowed an opportunity of being heard. 5. Today, the matter is listed for hearing the petition for cancellation of bail again. But none response for the opposite parties 2 and 3. 6. There is nothing on record to indicate that the observations made in the order dated 15-1-2001 are not based on the facts and circumstances, which have been brought on record by the petitioner. So also there is no material, which may suggest that the bail of the opposite parties 2 and 3 should not be cancelled. All the relevant facts have already been reproduced in the order dated 15-1-2001. 7. Having submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also taken into account the facts, which have been brought to my notice, I allow the petition and cancel the bail of the opposite parties 2 and 3. All the relevant facts have already been reproduced in the order dated 15-1-2001. 7. Having submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also taken into account the facts, which have been brought to my notice, I allow the petition and cancel the bail of the opposite parties 2 and 3. They shall be taken into custody forthwith. On being taken into custody, their bail bonds shall be cancelled and sureties discharged. The Sessions Judge, Lucknow shall comply with the order within three days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8. The petition filed by the State of U. P. i. e. Crl. Misc. Case No. 593 of 1999 is disposed of accordingly. Crt. M. C. Allowed. .