Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2665 (ALL)

HIMANSHU AGARWAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-08-31

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.—This application has been moved with the prayer to cancel the bail of the opposite party No. 2 granted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No. 2867 of 2015, (Mobin v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2015, under Section 379, 411, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C., P.S.-Surajpur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant while seeking the cancellation of bail has tried to reopen the merits of the case and tried to persuade the Court to hold a contrary view than the view taken by the Court below while granting bail on the facts of the case. Counsel has also submitted that certain relevant facts have been ignored and certain relevant facts have been wrongly appreciated while granting bail, and therefore, in this view of the matter, the bail should be cancelled. 4. It is true that different Courts may take different views on the given set of facts where the matter lies on the brink and this is also possible that the higher Court might take a different view in the given facts of the case. But that does not mean to say that this is an adequate ground to cancel the bail. Either the order granting bail is so perverse or so grossly against the law or the manner of appreciation of evidence is against the settled norms and reflect some such perversity that no ordinary man of ordinary prudence would ever appreciate the facts in the same manner, this Court does not reappreciate the order passed with regard to bail. Unless some such extraordinary features are reflected this Court is loath to interfere in the discretion of the lower Court. Counsel for the applicant has been fair enough to concede that there is no material to indicate that after the liberty granted to the accused, he has tried to misuse the same or has tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence or has coerced the witnesses which may lead to impair the fair investigation or fair trial of the case. 5. In view of the above, this Court does not feel convinced to proceed for consideration of cancellation of bail. The bail cancellation application, being sans merit, stands rejected.