Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1613 (ALL)

Pawan Kumar Dwivedi v. State Of U. P.

2017-07-05

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This bail cancellation application has been preferred by the applicant to cancel the bail of Opposite Party No. 2 granted on 28.01.2016 in Case Crime No. 854 of 2015 under sections 307, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. by Sessions Judge, Kannauj. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that since after release on bail vide order dated 28.01.2016 of Sessions Judge, Kannauj, the O.P. No. 2 is pressurizing applicant for compromise and is hurling abuses and threats of life to the applicant; that the applicant submitted an application to Station House Officer, Kotwali Chhibramau on 20.04.2016, another application to Dy. Superintendent of Police Chhibramau and Superintendent of Police Kannauj on 23.04.2016 and one application to Circle Officer Chhibramau on 25.08.2016 at Annexure Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively; that on application dated 25.08.2016 order was made for enquiry and seeking cancellation of bail in case the complaint is correct but no proceedings were drawn against O.P. No. 2; that thus the O.P. No. 2 is misusing liberty of bail and his bail is liable to be cancelled. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail. 5. Upon hearing the parties counsel and perusal of records, I find that the first informant has not challenged the correctness of impugned order of bail passed by Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 28.01.2016 rather has sought cancellation of bail on the ground of new circumstances or subsequent developments since release of O.P. No. 2. 6. It is settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court in (1978) 1 SCC 118 Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admin) that:- "If the bail was granted by Sessions Court, the application for cancellation of bail may be moved. (i) if there are certain new circumstances, which were not earlier known to the State, before the Court of Sessions, and (ii) if there are no new circumstances, it is futile to move before Sessions court again, and it is competent in law to move to High Court." 11. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of Abdul Basit Vs. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 . 12. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of Abdul Basit Vs. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 . 12. Learned counsel for the applicant has not assigned any reason why he has not approached the Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail. 13. In view of the discussions made above since the cancellation of bail has been sought on the ground of alleged subsequent incidents of abusing and threatening, the Sessions Court is competent to pass appropriate order on application for cancellation of bail and in absence of any allegation of fraud having been played on court below or of any illegality, the application for cancellation of bail on subsequent event is not maintainable before this court. 14. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case. Bail cancellation application is disposed of with the observation that the applicant will be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Judge, Kannauj, on same grounds.