Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1426 (ALL)

Naseem Jahan v. State of Up And Another.

2010-04-29

SURENDRA SINGH

body2010
Hon'ble Surendra Singh, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and also perused the material placed on record. 2. The applicant by way of filing the present application in terms of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has sought to cancel the bail granted to the opposite Party no.2 (father-in-law of the deceased) by another bench of this Court by order dated 05.01.2009 vide criminal misc. bail application no. 34652 of 2008, in Case Crime No.836 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad. 3. Submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant, the informant of the aforesaid case that after the accused was released on bail in pursuance of the order dated 05.01.2009 passed by this Court, the informant and independent witnesses are being subjected to threat by the opposite party no.2 and his supporters to enter into compromise and there is hardly any progress in the case which is being tried. He further contends that the applicant as PW-1 has already been examined on 14.12.2009. The applicant has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 7.5.2009 which was directed by the learned Magistrate to be treated as a complaint case and the opposite party no.2 and one another have been summoned to face trial under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. moreover one Mohd Naseer has also lodged F.I.R. against the opposite party no.2 and his family members under Sections 147, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 4. Indisputably, the parameter, for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are different. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. However, bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused- opposite party no.2 to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. Viewed in this perceptive in the absence of any supervening circumstances, it will not be possible for this Court to cancel the bail of the opposite party no.2 at this stage. Moreover since accused- opposite party no.2 is on bail for considerable length of time, I do not think it appropriate to cancel the bail. The prayer for cancelling the bail is declined and the application is accordingly rejected. Moreover since accused- opposite party no.2 is on bail for considerable length of time, I do not think it appropriate to cancel the bail. The prayer for cancelling the bail is declined and the application is accordingly rejected. However, the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without unreasonable delay. 5. It is further provided that if the informant or any witness seeks protection for appearance before the court during the trial, the same shall be provided by the concerned police official.