Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1614 (ALL)

Jagdish Yadav v. State of U. P.

2017-07-05

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Harsh Kumar, J. This bail cancellation application has been preferred by the applicant to cancel the bail of Opposite Party No. 2 to 5 granted on 4.5.2016 in Case Crime No. 87 of 2016 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 336, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C. by learned Sessions Judge, Deoria. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Deoria vide order dated 4.5.2016 and after release they are abusing and threatened the applicant and are making misuse of liberty of bail; that the opposite parties threatened the applicant and pressurized for withdrawal of criminal case, because of which 2 NCRs No. 51 of 2016 and 61 of 2016 were lodged against them on 18.5.2016 & 19.5.2016 at P.S.Bhatani & Khukhundu, copies of which have been filed at annxure-5; that due to above reasons, since opposite parties No. 2 to 5 are making misuse of liberty of bail, bail granted to them is liable to be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and contended that NCRs have been lodged with false allegations with a mala fide intention to make a ground for cancellation of bail. 5. It is settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court in (1978) 1 SCC 118 Gurcharan Singh v. 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." Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 . 6. 6. Upon hearing the parties counsel and 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 allegations 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. 7. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case the 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, Deoria, on same grounds if so advised.