Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 387 (UTT)

Rajendra Singh Negi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-08

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the material available on records. 2. Respondent Pradeep Kumar was granted bail in FIR No. 200 of 2008, under Sections 419, 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun on 4th July, 2017 in Bail Application No. 613 of 2017. 3. Applicant moved bail cancellation application. This application was moved on 10th August, 2017; it was listed for the first time on 11th August, 2017, when adjournment was sought on behalf of the applicant; again the matter was listed on 28th August, 2017 and on that date also it was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the applicant; the matter was again listed on 27nd December, 2017 but, it was again adjourned at the request of the applicant. Now, almost after three years, this bail cancellation application has again been listed. 4. The applicant is the informant, who lodged the FIR in the case, on 7th December, 2018. The allegation in the FIR is that the respondent without any authority sold a land belonging to the applicant. 5. The Court today wanted to know from the learned counsel for the applicant as to what is the ground on which the bail cancellation application is moved. Learned counsel would raise two points: (i) Forensic Science Laboratory report has been received which confirms handwriting and thumb impression of the respondent. (ii) That the respondent is threatening the respondent for compromise. 6. The Court wanted to know as to whether any complaint was lodged or given to any authority with regard to threat that has been extended to the applicant. In reply to it, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no such report available on record and, in fact, he is not in a position to tell as to whether any application was given or not. The Court again required learned counsel for the applicant to tell as to whether, the Forensic Science Laboratory report was available prior to grant of bail to the respondent, to which, the reply is in affirmative. 7. Forensic Science Laboratory report is dated 17th June, 2015, and the bail was granted to the respondent on 4th July, 2017. 8. The Court again required learned counsel for the applicant to tell as to whether, the Forensic Science Laboratory report was available prior to grant of bail to the respondent, to which, the reply is in affirmative. 7. Forensic Science Laboratory report is dated 17th June, 2015, and the bail was granted to the respondent on 4th July, 2017. 8. The Court further requested the learned counsel for the applicant to tell the Court as to at which stage, the trial is pending? In reply to it, it is told that the trial is pending since 2008. Learned counsel for the applicant has no idea, as to at which stage, the trial is pending. 9. The Court further requested learned counsel for the applicant to tell as to whether, the applicant's examination has been recorded during trial, learned counsel for the applicant has no idea about it also. The Court then requested learned State counsel to tell as to which stage the trial is pending and how many witnesses have been examined in this case, he has also no idea. This is really much strange. In a bail cancellation application neither on behalf of the applicant nor on behalf of the State, information is being submitted at the time of hearing. 10. Bail cancellation application is pending since last three years. The applicant has no idea as to why the bail cancellation application is pending for the last three years. This Court sees no reason to proceed with the matter. There appears to be no ground even to entertain the bail cancellation application and it deserves to be dismissed. 11. The bail cancellation application is dismissed.