JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Viparna Gaur in person, Sri N.I. Jafri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for accused opposite party 2 and Sri Ratan Singh and Sri Udit Chandra, learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This is an application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed by Informant/Applicant with the prayer to cancel bail granted to Accused / Opposite Party 2, Prem Chandra Sharma, vide order dated 26.04.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41324 of 2016 in Sessions Trial No.566 of 2016 arising from Case Crime No.337 of 2016 under Sections 147, 302, 307, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun. 3. A First Information Report (hereinafter referred to “FIR”) was lodged by Informant/Applicant on 24.5.2016 at 8:25 P.M., at Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun under Sections 147, 304, 504, 323, 506, 120-B IPC alleging that Informant/Applicant’s sister Sadhna Sharma and family had a long enmity with Accused Shravan Kumar son of Mahipal Gupta, Guddu alias Sudhanshu son of Mahendra Nath Sharma, Munna alias Brajendra Nath Sharma son of Brajraj Sharma, Kamal Sharma son of Raghuveer, all are residents of Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, and, Bhure son of Akhtar, resident of Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun. On 23.5.2016, Informant/Applicant’s sister Km. Sadhna Sharma, In-charge D.G.C. (Criminal), District Judgeship Budaun came to District Court alongwith her servant Bihari on Scooty Activa, bearing registration No.UP 24N-9744 where case of Bhure was fixed in Budaun Judgeship. In the evening, at around 5:30 P.M., while Km. Sadhna Sharma was coming back on Scooty as a Pillon Rider, and Scooty was being driven by servant Bihari, near Balaji Temple, a car was waiting in which accused was sitting and Kamal Sharma was on driving seat. They chased Scooty and near Jirauliya Village, hit the Scooty resulting in Scooty rider namely Bihari and Informant/Applicant’s sister Km. Sadhna Sharma fell on the road. Accused thereafter passed vehicle over Km.Sadhna Sharma with intention to kill her. They stopped vehicle near Bihari and said to kill Bihari also but at the same time some passengers came and accused ran away. Bihari with the help of persons gathered, brought Km. Sadhna Sharma to District Hospital where she died. On receiving information, Informant/Applicant came to hospital at 11 P.M. and lost control over her seeing her sister dead. They stopped vehicle near Bihari and said to kill Bihari also but at the same time some passengers came and accused ran away. Bihari with the help of persons gathered, brought Km. Sadhna Sharma to District Hospital where she died. On receiving information, Informant/Applicant came to hospital at 11 P.M. and lost control over her seeing her sister dead. Thereafter, she made arrangement for her cremation and then came to Police Station for registering report. She also believed that in the entire incident and conspiracy, BSP MLA Yogendra Sagar was also involved. During investigation, Police recorded statements of Shamshad, Raju and Girish Mishra, who disclosed name of opposite party 2 that he was the kingpin who conspired murder of Km.Sadhna Sharma through contract killers. Shamshad, Raju and Girish Mishra disclosed names of opposite party 2 P.C.Sharma alias Prem Chand Sharma, Mastana alias Abdul Navi, Pintu alias Munendra alias Narendra, Mohabbat alias Sajid, Yasin alias Baba and Ishrat. Police then arrested Mastana and Yasin, whose names surfaced in commission of crime including co-accused Raju and Girish. They confessed their guilt of having committed crime and disclosed complicity of opposite party 2 Prem Chand Sharma stating that he had hatched entire conspiracy of murder of Km. Sadhna Sharma. Opposite party 2 is a powerful political person having money and muscle power. He had contested Assembly Election in 2012 from Bilsi Vidhan Sabha. Since local Police of Ujhani was under his pressure and influence, therefore on the complaint of Informant/Applicant, investigation was transferred to Crime Branch, Bareilly on 22.07.2016. On the same day, Investigating Officer, in his investigation, excluded names of all six accused persons named in FIR. During further investigation, Raju Girish, Mastana and Yasin also disclosed involvement of Kamlesh Sharma wife of Prem Chand Sharma, Sharvan Gupta (accused named in FIR) and Shraddha Gupta wife of Sharvan Gupta for hatching conspiracy of murder of Km. Sadhna Sharma. The statements were corroborated by Call Detail Records of all accused persons and other statements of witnesses. Investigating Officer consequently submitted charge sheet on 23.09.2016 and supplementary charge sheets on 17.10.2016 and 15.11.2016 naming accused Raju alias Riyaz, Girish Mishra, Abdul Nabi alias Mastana, Yasin alias Baba, P.C.Sharma alias Prem Chand Sharma, Israt, Mohabbat alias Sajid and Pintu alias Munendra. On 29.12.2018, in supplementary charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer of Crime Branch, Breilly, Sharvan Gupta, Kamlesh Sharma and Shraddha Gupta were named. 4. On 29.12.2018, in supplementary charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer of Crime Branch, Breilly, Sharvan Gupta, Kamlesh Sharma and Shraddha Gupta were named. 4. Chief Judicial Magistrate Budaun taking cognizance, summoned accused persons on 21.12.2019. Sri Vinod Kumar. Station House Officer, Ujhani was favouring accused, inasmuch as, on 03.01.2019 without any authority or information to Crime Branch, Bareilly, who was Investigating the case, reached Ram Murty Hospital, Bareilly and accepted bail bond of absconder accused Kamlesh on the ground that she was ill. When Informant/Applicant made complaint, accused Kamlesh Sharma appeared in Court on 28.01.2019 and prayed that she should be sent to District Hospital, Budaun but it was rejected and her bail application was rejected by Sessions Judge. She moved bail application before this Court, which was granted by this Court. 5. Opposite party 2 also moved bail application before this Court i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41324 of 2016, which was allowed and bail was granted vide order dated 26.04.2017 but following conditions were imposed : “(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.” (Emphasis added) 6. Violating conditions of bail, opposite party 2 intimidated and threatened applicant on 15.12.2017 in respect whereof Informant/Applicant lodged report dated 16.12.2017 at 4:14 P.M. under Section 506 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun. Opposite party 2 made another attempt of identifying Informant/ Applicant with his associates with an intention to eliminate her and this incident took place on 06.07.2019 in respect whereof FIR being Case Crime No.250 of 2019 was lodged on 08.07.2019 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun. Opposite party 2 made another attempt of identifying Informant/ Applicant with his associates with an intention to eliminate her and this incident took place on 06.07.2019 in respect whereof FIR being Case Crime No.250 of 2019 was lodged on 08.07.2019 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun. He is not appearing in trial, delaying the same by absenting on false and artificial reason; has filed a false application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, against Informant/Applicant and others vide application dated 13.08.2019 wherein has placed documents, which shows that he has intimidated witnesses and met them repeatedly to influence them. This all show that he has violated terms and conditions of bail with impuginity and without being deterred in any manner. 7. Manner in which opposite party 2 is violating terms and conditions on which bail has been granted, has been detailed in paras 16 to 26 of affidavit filed in support of bail cancellation application, which are reproduced as under : “16. That in spite specific directions issued by this Hon'ble Court while considering prayer for bail of respondent No.2 i.e. P.C .Sharma, who he again and again intimidated and insulted to induce the informant with intend to inflict threat of her personal life and liberty. As such the informant lodged an NCR against the respondent no.2 on 17.12.2017 U/s 506 IPC with respect to the incident occurred on 15.12.2017 at 17.:15 hours. In the said NCR the respondent no.2 inflicted threat against the informant because the informant consistently pursuing her sister's murder case against the respondent no.2 P.C. Sharma. Accordingly the respondent no.2 is wanted to not pursue her case by the informant otherwise she may be face dire consequences. The contents of allegation may be verified from the FIR itself. Copy of NCR bearing No.274/2017 dated 17.12.2017 is being filed here with and marked as Annexure No.5 to this affidavit. 17. That again the respondent no.2 trying to identified the informant with his associates with intention to eliminate her on 06.07.2019 when she pursuing her case before the court. In the court premises, the respondent no. 2 identified the informant with intention to kill her and teach her lession to not pursue her remedy against him. The copy of FIR bearing Case Crime No.250/2019 dated 08.07.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit. 18. In the court premises, the respondent no. 2 identified the informant with intention to kill her and teach her lession to not pursue her remedy against him. The copy of FIR bearing Case Crime No.250/2019 dated 08.07.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit. 18. That it is a consistent case of the prosecution that the P.C. Sharma is habitual lecher and developed illlicit relation with various persons to achieve their goals. In fact the said allegation was verified by the co-accused Kamlesh Sharma who is the wife of P.C. Sharma and alleged that she was keep mum since last several years to save her skin and her wards future but her husband P.C. Sharma assault her and attempted to commit murder with her on 25.07.2019 when after taking liquor he was assaulted her repeatedly by his belt. The manner in which she was assaulted by her husband P.C. Sharma narrated in her FIR which demonstrates that the P.C.Sharma is habitual offender and violated the terms and conditions of bail granted by this Hon'ble Court. The Kamlesh Sharma lodged FIR against her husband P.C. Sharma who is the respondent no.2 in the present bail cancellation applicant for an offence of attempt to commit her murder. The copy of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 277/2019 dated 25.07.2019 is being filed here with and marked as Annexure No.7 to this affidavit. 19. That the third condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court against the respondent no.2 to appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court. Now the respondent no.2 consistently seeks adjournment before the trial court in S.T. No. 566/2016 (State vs. P.C.Sharma & Ors.) U/s 307, 302 IPC registered at P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun. The respondent through his counsel to mislead the court, endorsed section 304-B IPC in place of section 307 and 302 IPC, so that his applications seeking adjournments may not be used for cancellation of his bail application before this Hon'ble Court. Ultimately on 26.08.2017 the resondent no.2 corrected the said offence alleged against him and transcribed the correct section U/s 302, 120-B IPC and seeks adjournment for his non appearance. The copy of applications dated 24.07.2017, 02.08.2017, 26.08.2017 and 08.09.2017 are being collectively filed here with and marked as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit. 20. That in application dated 08.0.2017 the informant pointed out before the Trial Court that the accused-respondent no. The copy of applications dated 24.07.2017, 02.08.2017, 26.08.2017 and 08.09.2017 are being collectively filed here with and marked as Annexure No.8 to this affidavit. 20. That in application dated 08.0.2017 the informant pointed out before the Trial Court that the accused-respondent no. 2 consistently absconding in the court proceeding related to case crime no. 268/2017 U/s 2/3 Gangster Act and avoid the court process issued by the Gangster Court. It is further pointed out that proceeding of proclamation U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. Pursuant to the orders of Gangster Court, the concerned Police Station declared P.C. Sharma as a absconder of Rs.5000/-. It is further pointed out that the respondent-accused deliberately absent from the court proceeding to avoid the court proceeding and seeks regular adjournment by filing adjournment application. Accordingly the informant prayed that the Trial Court may pleased to direct the accused-respondent no.2 to appear before the court on the next date fixed, otherwise the trial court may forfeit his personal bail bond and sureties. Upon the said application the Trial Court is directed to place on record and be listed on the next date i.e. 12.09.2017 along with the Court's order sheet. The copy of application dated 08.09.2017 is being filed here with and marked as Annexure No.9 to this affidavit. 21. That on 12.09.2017 the Trial Court issued N.B.W. against P.C.Sharma because the court is of the view that the no counsel appearing on behalf of accused P.C. Sharma. The said finding of fact is against the record because the adjournment application filed on behalf of P.c. Sharma is being preferred by one Vivek Sharma counsel, represented before the court on 24.07.2017, 02.08.2017 and filed his vakalatnama on 08.08.2017. Thereafter again adjournment application was filed on behalf of P.C. Sharma by Rohtash Saxena Advocate on 26.08.2017 and 08.09.2017. As such the Trial Court without perusal of an application passed an order on 12.09.2017 and recorded perverse finding which is against material available on record. 22. That in application dated 26.09.2017 the informant pointed out before the Trial Court that the accused-respondent no.2 consistently absconding in the court proceeding related to case crime no.268/2017 U/s 2/3 Gangster Act and avoid the court process issued by the Gangster Court. It is further pointed out that proceeding of proclamation U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. 22. That in application dated 26.09.2017 the informant pointed out before the Trial Court that the accused-respondent no.2 consistently absconding in the court proceeding related to case crime no.268/2017 U/s 2/3 Gangster Act and avoid the court process issued by the Gangster Court. It is further pointed out that proceeding of proclamation U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. Pursuant to the orders of Gangster Court, the concern Police Station declared P.C. Sharma as a absconder of Rs.5000/-. It is further pointed out that the respondent-accused deliberately absent from the court proceeding to avoid the court proceeding and seeks regular adjournment by filing adjournment application. Accordingly upon the prayer of informant, the Trial Court pleased to issue the N.B.W. Against the accused-respondent no.2 on 12.09.2017 and next date fixed on 26.09.2017 for appearance but the accused-respondent no.2 not appear on 26.09.2017 is being filed here with and marked as Annexure No.10 to this affidavit. 23. That in reply to the said application and order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court against P.C. Sharma, the respondent-accused admitted in his application dated 05.10.2017 that he has pursuing his case before the High Court and suffering illness due to which against whom the N.B.W. Was issued by the court. It is further urged that the said error was not occurred deliberately, as such the trial court may pleased to recall the NBW issued against him. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court without keeping in mind of earlier application filed by his counsel namely Vivek Sharma and Rohtas Saxena and accepted his explanation which is absolutely false and frivolous and cannot be accepted by any common prudent man. The copy of application dated 05.10.2017 is being filed here with and marked as Annexure No.11 to this affidavit. 24. That the informant consistently prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the respondent-accused being designer of the crime hatched conspiracy for murder of existing D.G.C. Criminal Sadhana Sharma to grab her property and eliminate her. The respondent-accused after release on bail by this Hon'ble Court consistently violated the term and condition of the bail bond and sureties and the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court. The respondent-accused after release on bail by this Hon'ble Court consistently violated the term and condition of the bail bond and sureties and the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court. As such the informant prayed with folded hand before this Hon'ble Court that his bail cancellation application may kindly pleased to allow and direct the Trial Court to taken into judicial custody so that the fair and speedy trial be conducted by the trial court without any biased manner. 25. That it is further relevant to point out here that just to create pressure upon the informant and the witnesses namely Aniruddha Gautam and Munendra Gangawar as well as the formal witnesses Gopichand Yadav (I.O.), Surendra Singh Pawar (I.O.), the accused-respondent no.2 initiated proceeding U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against them. The said application was preferred before the C.J.M. Budaun on 13.08.2019. In the said application P.C.Sharma appended the conversation of call recording of taken place between Gopichand Yadav (I.O.), Munendra Gangwar (witness), Surendra Satoriya (witness), Inspector Naresh Pal Yadav, S.I. A.K.Singh and verified their call recording by sending pen drive before truth forensic lab services mark as item no.1 and after analysis the lab found that the pen drive mark item no.1 did not contained any sign of physical damage like cracks scratch marks and it was in working condition at the time of examination. However it is admitted case of the respondent no.2 in his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. that he regularly negotiated with the witnesses and the Investigating Officers with a view to influence the investigation, threatened the witnesses and destroy the evidence for that purposes he has regularly recorded the conversation taken place between them. As such on the face of record the respondent no.2 admitted in h is application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. that he is regularly trying to threatened and influence the witnesses in any manner even against whom an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed to achieve their goal so that they may not be deposed their testimony because of his fear that respondent no. 2 may involved them in anywhere in false cases. However, the accused-respondent no.2 who filed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before C.J.M. Budaun is unable to get any benefit of the fats given by him in his application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the ordinary people fears and trembled by any court cases falsely imposed upon him. 2 may involved them in anywhere in false cases. However, the accused-respondent no.2 who filed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before C.J.M. Budaun is unable to get any benefit of the fats given by him in his application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but the ordinary people fears and trembled by any court cases falsely imposed upon him. Copy of application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 13.08.2019 along with its annexure and call recording are being filed here with and marked as Anneuxre No.12 to this affidavit. 26. That under the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is evident that the respondent no.2 regularly violated the terms and conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court and trying to destroy the evidence by making pressure upon the witnesses. It is further relevant to point out here that the respondent no.2 is regularly influence the witnesses so that they may not be permitted to deposed their testimony before the court against him. As such the free and fair trial and investigation cannot be conducted in the said circumstances because the respondent no.2 has regularly inflicted threat and making pressure upon the witnesses including the S.H.O. Ujhani namely Vinod Kumar who has accepted the bail bond of his wife under the pressure of P.C.Sharma.” 8. During course of arguments, Informant/Applicant, who had appeared in person before Court, placed order sheets of Trial Court to demonstrate that opposite party 2 is not attending trial, avoiding on artificial pretext and also placed before Court own document filed by opposite party 2 along with application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to show the manner in which he is regularly and constantly contacting witnesses and trying to influence and threatening them so as to pursue them not to adduce evidence against him in pending trial. 9. Sri N.I.Jafri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Satsangi, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of opposite party 2. While disputing contention of Informant/Applicant that opposite party 2 is violating terms and conditions on which bail has been granted, he however could not dispute order sheets showing non appearance of opposite party 2 in Court below and also recorded telephonic conversation showing access of opposite party 2 with witnesses with the help of local Police also. 10. It is in this backdrop, this Court has to examine whether opposite party 2 is behaving in a manner so as to justify cancellation of bail or not? 11. 10. It is in this backdrop, this Court has to examine whether opposite party 2 is behaving in a manner so as to justify cancellation of bail or not? 11. Now before going further in detail on this aspect, I find it appropriate to have a bird eye view of judicial precedents on the question as to in what circumstances, bail already granted can be cancelled or must be cancelled. 12. Considerations and relevant aspects by a Court while granting a bail are different than those when an application for cancellation of bail has come up before the Court. 13. A three-Judges Bench of Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411 had an occasion to consider an order dated 11.04.1978 passed by Delhi High Court rejecting Delhi Administration's application for cancellation of bail of respondent Sanjay Gandhi. Court observed that rejection of bail, when bail applied is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves review of a decision already made and can, by and large, be permitted only, if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom during the trial. 14. While considering degree of burden of prove lie upon prosecution or complainant/Informant, when an application for cancellation of bail moved, is not to the extent of proving by a mathematical certainty or beyond reasonable doubt but it must establish its case by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that accused has attempted or may attempt to or tamper or has tampered with witnesses. It may also be proved by test of balance of probabilities that accused has abused his liberty or it may show that there is reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with course of justice. Court approved Bombay High Court decision in Madhukar Purshottam Jondkar vs. Talab Haji Hussain 60 Bombay Law Reporter 465 that test adopted by the Court would be, whether material placed before it is such as to lead to the conclusion that there is a strong prima facie case that accused if allowed to be at large he would tamper with prosecution witnesses and impede course of justice. Mere unfounded apprehension or self imagined threat by prosecution or Informant-Complainant would not justify cancellation of bail, granted to accused. 15. In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 , Court said that grounds for cancellation of bail under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. 16. It was also held that above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order since it interferes with liberty of individual and must not be lightly resorted to. 17. Above decision was followed in Manjit Prakash and Ors. vs. Shobha Devi and Anr. (2009) 13 SCC 785 as also in Pooja Bhatia vs. Vishnu Narain Shivpuri and others (2014)13 SCC 492 . 18. In Pooja Bhatia (supra), considering conduct of accused i.e. charge of throwing acid on complainant, Court held that it was a serious aspect and therefore, accused is not entitled to continue with the benefit of bail. 19. In Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 , Court said that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted, has to be dealt with and considered on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail, already granted. Court further said that generally speaking grounds of cancellation of bail, broadly i.e. illustrative and not exhaustive are : (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (ii) evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice; (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; (iv) Satisfaction of Court, on the basis of material placed on record of possibility of accused absconding. 20. 20. Court also reminded that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial. 21. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280 Court said that while granting bail, nature of accusations, severity of punishment, if accusation entails a conviction, nature of evidence in support of the accusations should be kept in mind. Further, reasonable apprehensions of witnesses being tampered with or apprehension of there being a threat for complainant also need be weighed by Court. No discussion of entire evidence to form an opinion whether evidence would established guilt beyond reasonable doubt is expected at the stage of considering matter of bail but prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge must be there. Lastly, Court should also consider whether prosecution has element of genuineness or there is some fragility. In case of any doubt as to genuineness, normal course is to grant bail. To the same effect are the observation made in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525 . 22. In Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 it was held that grant of bail though discretionary in nature, yet such exercise cannot be arbitrary, capricious and injudicious. Heinous nature of crime warrants more caution. 23. In CBI, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others (2011) 5 SCC 296 , in para 23, Court said : "....that there is difference between yardstick for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 24. Position, influence and resources of accused have also been held relevant factors to adjudge whether accused is likely to interfere with administration of justice, trial or tamper with witness or evidence. 25. In State Represented by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 , anticipatory bail was granted by Himachal Pradesh High Court and C.B.I. approached for cancellation of bail stating that accused was a former Minister of Himachal Pradesh and being a high authority in power is likely to disrupt even investigation but High Court did not accept application for cancellation of bail. On appeal, Supreme Court accepted C.B.I. contention and observed that in case of such highly influenced political person, the very interrogation and investigation may become a mere ritual hence Court cancelled order of anticipatory bail. 26. In Padmakar tukaram Bhavnagare and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2012) 13 SCC 720, Supreme Court while confirming order of anticipatory bail took into accunt that accused are aged and rustic, not influential persons holding high office who can bring pressure upon investigating agency and it is unlikely that Police would find it difficult to interrogate them because they are protected by an order granting anticipatory bail. That is how judgment in State Represented by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma (supra) was also distinguished. However, Court also clarified that grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are interference or attempt to interfere with due course of justice or abuse of concession granted to the accused in any manner but an order of bail can also be cancelled where it is found to be perverse, passed ignoring evidence on record or taking into considering irrelevant material. Relying on Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 66 Court said that such vulnerable bail order must be quashed in the interest of justice. 27. In State of Maharashtra and Ors. Relying on Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 66 Court said that such vulnerable bail order must be quashed in the interest of justice. 27. In State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Pappu (2014) 11 SCC 244 , accused was convicted under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC for hatching criminal conspiracy in killing of deceased Inder Bhatija. In appeal, High Court while admitting appeal, enlarged accused on bail and this order of bail was challenged in Supreme Court by the State on the ground that accused was involved in as many as 52 cases, out of which 20 cases offences were registered against him before going to jail and while he was in jail; and 32 cases were registered when he was released by Court on conditional bail. The defence taken on behalf of accused, besides other, was that he has already spent 9 years in jail during pendency of trial and no witness has supported prosecution case and that it was a political rivalry in which he was falsely implicated. Supreme Court said that reason given by High Court that father and wife of deceased have turned hostile, cannot be a ground to grant bail since there were other witnesses and material available. High Court should not have ignored the fact that accused was involved in as many as 52 cases out of which 20 were registered before going to jail and during stay in jail, and whenever he was on bail or conditional bail, 32 cases were registered. Court also found that in some cases accused was acquitted but still 15 trials were pending in which two cases were under Section 302 read with 120B IPC. Having said so, Court observed that since accused was in jail for 9 years and as per pendency, High Court would have taken a large number of years in deciding appeal, therefore, Court should decide appeal expeditiously and with the above direction, appeal was allowed and order of bail granted by High Court was set aside. 28. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508 , this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. 28. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508 , this Court had granted bail to accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. Court considered various earlier authorities and said in para 13 of judgment as under : “...It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court.” 29. Thereafter, referring to 15 cases registered again accused showing that he was a history-sheeter and mostly under Section 302 IPC, order of bail was set aside. Court observed that there has to be a balance between personal liberty of an individual and peace and harmony of Society. No individual interest can be allowed to create a concavity in the stem of social stream otherwise it would bring chaos and anarchy in the Society. Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced as under : “....We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law.” (emphasis added) 30. In Virupakshappa Gouda and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 406 , application for bail was rejected by Sessions Judge as also High Court. Even second bail application was rejected by Sessions Judge as also High Court. This time accused went to Supreme Court also but Special Leave Petition was also rejected. Then a third application was filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, which was allowed and accused were enlarged on bail. Informant brought the mater to High Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail. He succeeded and High Court cancelled bail. This time accused went to Supreme Court also but Special Leave Petition was also rejected. Then a third application was filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur, which was allowed and accused were enlarged on bail. Informant brought the mater to High Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail. He succeeded and High Court cancelled bail. Thereafter accused brought the matter to Supreme Court. Court made serious observations in respect of approach of Trial Court in granting bail by treating filing of charge-sheet as a change of circumstance but ignoring that already two bail applications were rejected and one has attained finality up to Supreme Court. Court said that bail application cannot be allowed solely or exclusively on the ground that in criminal jurisprudence accused is presumed to be innocent till found guilty by the Court. Trial Court has relied on Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 wherein it was observed that object of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and not punitive or preventive. Deprivation of liberty should be considered a punishment. Court should appreciate that punishment begins after conviction and every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. Supreme Court said that above observations in Sanjay Chandra (supra) have their relevance but cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail. It all depends upon factual matrix of each case, nature of crime and manner in which it was committed. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of factual score and understanding of pronouncements in the field. Court relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 where it was opined that while exercising power for grant of bail, Court must to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors as under : “(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the Accused had committed the offence. Court relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 where it was opined that while exercising power for grant of bail, Court must to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors as under : “(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the Accused had committed the offence. (ii)nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis added) 31. It also held that where a bail is granted considering irrelevant materials or keeping out of consideration relevant material, the order becomes vulnerable and warrants annulment. The order of High Court setting aside bail granted by Trial Court was upheld by Supreme Court. 32. In Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 22 Court enlarged to certain more aspects for granting bail, whether accused was arrested during investigation when he had best opportunity to tamper with evidence and influence witness or Investigating Officer found it not necessary to arrest accused during investigation and this factor would go in favour of accused. Similarly, whether accused was participating in investigation regularly and not absconding or avoiding investigation. Further, whether accused is a first-time offender or is accused of other offences and if yes, nature of such offences and his general conduct. Poverty or deemed indigent status of an accused, Court held, is also an important factor to be taken note. It observed that grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Finding that accused was not said to be a person of shady character and there was no history of his involvement in any unacceptable activity etc., accused was granted bail, though it was rejected by Trial Court as well as High Court. 33. In State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Mahimananda Mishra and Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 516 , accused was granted bail by High Court and it was set aside by Supreme Court. 33. In State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Mahimananda Mishra and Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 516 , accused was granted bail by High Court and it was set aside by Supreme Court. Court observed that accused was a powerful and influential person in his locality and even Investigating Officer apprehends that he may influence witnesses by intimidating them and this may influence trial by creating fear in the minds of witnesses. Court also looked into past attempt of accused to evade process of law and then found that order of grant of bail was not proper and it was set aside. 34. In X vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (2018)16 SCC 511 , accused, a Film Producer, based in Mumbai, was charged of offences under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506, 354(C) of IPC. Accused got anticipatory bail from Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017 and had advantage of that order for about eight months. The said order was cancelled by Sessions Judge on the ground that accused has not disclosed that he was also accused in 2G Spectrum case. This cancellation order was affirmed by High Court and also by Supreme Court. Thereafter accused moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by High Court and accused was released on bail. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Upholding the said order, Court said that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on supervening event has been made out. 35. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10 bail granted to accused by High Court in the case registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B IPC was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Court noticed that accused-2's bail application was rejected by Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad and thereafter bail was granted by High Court. Court said that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. 36. Thus, the broad principles, which are to be considered by this Court while granting bail and when bail is already granted but an application for cancellation has come up for consideration, as discussed above, show that there is no thumb rule in both the situations. Noticing special feature, Court upheld order of High Court granting bail. 36. Thus, the broad principles, which are to be considered by this Court while granting bail and when bail is already granted but an application for cancellation has come up for consideration, as discussed above, show that there is no thumb rule in both the situations. However, it is true that factors relevant for grant of bail are different and approach required to be adopted while considering application for cancellation of bail is different. 37. A perusal of order dated 26.04.2017 granting bail passed by this Court shows that while granting bail, this court relied on following circumstances and factum: (i) Opposite party 2 is not named in FIR wherein six persons have been specifically named. (ii) Informant-applicant is not an eye witness; (iii) FIR was lodged on the basis of information received from Bihari, eye witness, who was driving scooty on which deceased was pillion rider. (iv) Bihari in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not named opposite party 2; (v) Opposite party 2 had no motive to commit the crime; (vi) After a period of one month one Shamsad was introduced, who changed prosecution story and gave description of opposite party 2. (vii) Role of hatching conspiracy was assigned to Shamshad and Girish Mishra, co-accused; (viii) Later on confessional statement of Kallu was recorded and in second statement of Bihari, which was recorded, name of opposite party 2 was introduced and he was assigned motive. (ix) After four months, one Manoj who was introduced, claimed to be an eye witness who said while he was trying to help victim, she uttered that ^^ih lh 'kekZ rwus eq>s ejok fn;kA^^ (x) Co-accused Girish Mishra, who was granted bail on 18.11.2016 and case of opposite party 2 was similar. (xi) Call details relied by Police were still to be verified after adducing evidence. (xii) Opposite party 2 has no criminal history. 38. No criminal history of accused/opposite party 2 has been placed on record but cancellation of bail is pressed on alleged violation of terms and conditions, on which bail was granted and such terms and conditions, allegedly violated by opposite party 2 are : (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by trial court. (ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by trial court. (iv) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 39. In order to demonstrate that applicant is not appearing in Court and instead continuously delaying process, my attention has been drawn to proceedings of various dates which may be reproduced as under : A. On 24.7.2017 opposite party 2 sought adjournment stating as under : ^^fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ mijksDr okn esa vkjksfir gS ijUrq izkFkhZ futh dke ls ckgj pyk x;k gSA fdlh dkj.k o'k vkt gkftj vnkyr ugha vk ldk gSA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vkt dh gkftjh }kjk odhy dk;e djus dh d`ik djsaA** “It is humbly requested that the applicant is an accused in the above case but due to personal work, he has gone out of station. He is unable to appear in the court. Hence, it is requested that today's presence of the applicant may be marked through his counsel.” (English Translation by Court) B. On 02.8.2017 opposite party 2 sought adjournment stating as under : ^^fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ mijksDr okn esa vkjksfir gS ijUrq izkFkhZ xEHkhj :i ls fcekj gSA ftldh otg ls vkt gkftj vnkyr ugha vk ldk gSA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vkt dh gkftjh }kjk odhy dk;e djus dh d`ik djsaA** “It is humbly requested that the applicant is an accused in the above case but the applicant is seriously ill due to which he has not appeared in the Court, today. Hence, it is requested that today's presence of the applicant may be marked through his counsel.” (English Translation by Court) C. On 26.8.2017 opposite party 2 sough adjournment stating as under : ^^fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ mijksDr okn esa vkjksfir gS ijUrq izkFkhZ fdlh dkj.k ls bykgkckn x;k gSA blfy, gkftj vnkyr ugha vk ldk gSA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vkt dh gkftjh }kjk odhy dk;e djus dh d`ik djsa rFkk vFkok dk;Zokgh gsrq dksbZ vU; rkjh[k fu;r dj vkt dh rkjh[k eqYroh QjekbZ tkus dh d`ik djsaA** “It is humbly requested that the applicant is an accused in the above case but due to some reason, the applicant has gone to Allahabad. Therefore, he cannot appear in Court. Hence, it is requested that today's presence of the applicant may be marked through his counsel and it is requested to fix another date for the proceedings and today's date be deferred.” (English Translation by Court) D. On this application Court passed following order: ^^ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk Rofjr fuLrkj.k dk vkns'k gSA fu;r frfFk dks vfHk;qDr O;fDrxr :i ls gkftj gks] vU;Fkk n.MkRed vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;sxkA** “Honorable High court has ordered for expeditious disposal. The accused should appear personally on the fixed date otherwise punitive order would be passed.” (English Translation by Court) E. On 08.9.2017 opposite party 2 sought adjournment stating as under ^^lfou; fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ mPp U;k;ky; xSxLVj ds ekeys esa iSjoh gsrq x;k gqvk gSA ftl dkj.k gkftj vnkyr vkus esa vleFkZ gSA rFkk vkxkeh frfFk ij fuf'pr :i ls gkftj vnkyr gksxkA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vkt dh gkftjh }kjk odhy dk;e dh tk;A** “It is humbly requested that the applicant has gone to High court for pleading a case under Gangster Act, due to which he is unable to appear in the Court and he would definitely appear in the Court on next date. Hence, it is kindly requested to your good-self that todya's presence of the applicant may be marked through his counsel.” (English Translation by Court) F. On 05.10.2017 opposite party 2 sought cancellation of N.B.W. stating as under : ^^fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dks mijksDr ekeys esa vkjksfir fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ fiNyh frfFk;ksa ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; mipkj gsrq x;k gqvk Fkk rFkk fiNyh frfFk ij xEHkhj :i ls chekj gksus ds dkj.k ugha vk ldsA ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ ds fo:) ,u0ch0MCyw0 o ,u0,l0 gks x;sA izkFkhZ us ;g xyrh tkucw>dj ugha dh gS vkSj u Hkfo"; esa djsxkA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkjh ,u0ch0MCyw0 vikLr djus dh d`ik djsaA** “It is humbly requested that the applicant is an accused in the above case. On the previous dates, the applicant had been to the Hon'ble Court for treatment (?) and could not appear on previous dates on account of being seriously ill due to which N.B.W. and N.S. were issued against him. The applicant has not committed this mistake willingly and he would not do the same in future. Hence, it is requested to your good self that the N.B.W. issued against the applicant may be discharged.” (English Translation by Court) 40. This Court enquired from Sri Jafri, learned Senior Counsel about the illness suffered by opposite party 2 due to which he did not attend Court below but no reply on this aspect could be given. 41. The recording of telephonic conversation recording whereof was produced by opposite party 2 himself before Magistrate concerned alongwith his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which documents have not been disputed by Sri N.I.Jafri, Senior Advocate, appearing for opposite party 2. 41. The recording of telephonic conversation recording whereof was produced by opposite party 2 himself before Magistrate concerned alongwith his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which documents have not been disputed by Sri N.I.Jafri, Senior Advocate, appearing for opposite party 2. I find it appropriate to reproduce some extract thereof as under : ^^xksihpan&gSyks ih&gkWa ueLdkj lj xksihpan&ueLdkj ih&xksihpan lkc cksy jgs gSa\ xksihpan&gWw ih&gkWA lkc eSa ihlh 'kekZ cksy jgk gwWa lj xksihpan&cksyks ih&gkWa lj oks vkils ckr gqbZ Fkh] lk/kuk eMZj dsl esa lj FkksMk gesa fMQsal dj nhft, dqN crk nhft, lj dSls D;k gS xksihpan& rks vc ckn esa ckr gks jgs gSa - - - vc ,sls le; Qksu djrs gks] 'kke dks Qksu djuk ih& 'kke dks djsa lj\ xksihpan&gwWa ih&vPNk lj] lj cnk;wWa vki vk jgs gSa f'k'kqiky Hkh dg jgs Fks] igyoku Hkh dg jgs Fks vki cnk;wWa vkus okys gSa lj] ge lksp jgs fd cSB ds ckr gks tkrh lj vkils xksihpan& pyksa] vk;saxs crkmWxk eSa] rHkh rks dg jgk gWwa 'kke dks ckr dj ysuk ih& rks 'kke dks lj fdl le; dj ysa lj\ xksihpan& lkr cts djhc uh& Bhd gS lj] t; fgan lj x x x x x x ih&lj vkils ,d fnu eqykdkr djuk pkgrs Fks lj ] fdlh fnu vki cnk;wWa vkuk gks ;k cjsyh vkuk gks] rks ge eqykdkr djuk pkgrs Fks lj xksihpan&ugha] fn;ksfj;k dyka gwWa eSa bl le; ih& ugha oks rks lj eq>s ekywe gS lj] ,ds flag lkc ls iwN fy;k Fkk eSausA rks lj eS dqN vkils feyuk pkgrk FkkA xksihpan&crkbZs] crkbZ;s ih&vjs lj blh dsl ds flyflys esa vc ge - - - tks gksuk Fkk oks rks gks x;k gekjs lkFkA lj dqN vc- - - - dqN ,sls fcUnq gesa fey tk;s - - - dqN ,slk gesa dqN ,slh etcwrh fey tk;s] rkfd ge vius vkidks funksZ"k lkfcr dj ldsa xksihpan&vPNk rks ge crk;sxs - - - crk;saxsA ge ;gkWa fn;ksfj;k dyka gSa bl le; rks x x x x x x ujs'k iky&gSyks ih&gSyks] t;fgan lj ujs'k iky& t;fgan HkS;k ih&lj b aLisDVj ujs'k iky flag lkc cksy jgs gS a\ ujs'k iky&th cksy jgk gwW a HkS;k ih&lj eS cnk;wW a ls cksy jgk gwW a ihlh 'kekZ ujs'k iky&th crkbZ;s ih& lj vc cnk;wWa vkuk gksrk gS lkc dk ugha\ vkils feyuk pkg jgk Fkk lkc eSa ujs'k iky& crk;sa] crk;sa ih& lkc us igpkuk] ugha igpkuk\ ujs'k iky&ugha crk;s vki - - crk;sa ih&gkWa gkWa- - - lj oks lk/kuk eMZj dsl esa eq>s Qkal fn;k x;k ujs'k iky&vPNk vPNk ih& rks lj tks gksuk Fkk] oks rks gks x;k] tsy Hkh dkV yh lj geus] xSaxLVj Hkh yx x;h] oks Hkh dkV yh lj geus ujs'k iky&gWw gwWa ih& rks lj bl laca/k esa pkgrs Fks lj gesa ,slh tkudkjh dqN vkils gkfly gks tkrh] D;ksa geus dksbZ vijk/k rks fd;k ugha lj] rks ,ds flag lkc ls ckr Hkh gqbZ Fkh rks mUgksaus dgk fd tks dqN gksxk ge crk;sxs] lg;ksx djsaxsA lj ;s pkg jgs Fks] vkils eqykdkr gks tkrh] cSB ds dqN ckr dj ysrs lj vkils ge FkksMk lk ujs'k iky& ugha djuk D;k gS - - - djuk D;k gS] ;s crkvks\ ih&lj ge - - vc vki yksx crk;saxs] ge lkc D;k - - - gesa fdl rjhds ls gesa fMQsal esa dqN fey ldrk gS ujs'k iky&tekur rks gks gh x;h vki dh\ ih&vki lj vktdy ns[k jgs gks twMh f'k;y bruh l[r gS] oSls gh ltk Bksds tk jgh gS] tks geus dqN fd;k ugh a vkSj Bqd tk;s x x x x x x ih&lj cl vkidks lj ;s crkuk gS fd fdl rjhds ls bUgksaus dSls eSust fd;k tSls oks Vosjk xkMh Fkh esjh lqjsUnz ls Hkh ckr gqbZ oks Hkh dg jgk Fkk fd oks vLirky ls yk;h x;h x x x x x ih&ugha lj] vki xokg ugha gSa ljA rHkh rks eSa dg jgk gwWa ljA vki eq>s dqN ,sls fVIl ns ldrs gSa] tks eSa - - - esjs fMQsal esa dke vk ldrs gksa] dqN ,slh pht fudy dj vk tk;s] ftldks ge - - - ujs'k iky& ns[kksa lkc vc ckr ;s gS u fd dsl Mk;jh ns[ks] ge i<+s rks rks mlesa fey ldrh gS dksbZ ckr ,slh] dksbZ cM+h ckr rks gS ughaA dsl Mk;jh ys vkSj mldks i<+k tk;s] v/;;u djsa rks dqN - - ih&rks lj - - - xkMh lj xkMh r s vkids ;gkW a ls cjken fn[kkbZ xbZA oks fn[kkbZ ugha xbZ eryc tks eq>s irk yxk fd oks rks ujs'k iky& ugha gekjs ;gkW fy[kk&i<+h dqN ugha gqwbZ ih& gkW gkWa ujs'k iky& fy[kk i<+h geus dh gh ugha] vc m>kuh dk eSVj gS rks m>kuh okys ns[ks ih&ugha lj - - - lqjsUnz - - lqjsUnz lVksfj;k tks gS] mlls esjh iwjh okrkZ gqbZ] rks mlus Hkh eq>s - - - gkWa mlus Hkh dgk fd xkM+h rks fdlh efgyk ds uke ls Fkh vkSj ge rks ,sls gh yisVs esa vk x;sA eSaus - - ts rks lc gksrk gh gS oks rks NksM+ nksA rks mlus crk;k fd xkM+h ;s ugha Fkh] xkMh rks gkWfLiVy ls yk;h x;h gS vkSj ml O;fDr us [kqn gh Qksu fd;k vkSj ;s eq>s irk yx x;k Fkk fd vkidks dksbZ tkudkjh ugha Fkh] eq>s crk;k fd vki rks [kkuk [kk jgs Fks] ;s ,slk crk;k fdlh us eq>s vkSj mlus Qksu fd;k vkidks fd ,sls&,sls eq>ls ,d ,DlhMsUV gks x;k gS ,d efgyk dk ujs'k iky&gkWa gkWa ih&vkius mls ml le; gYds esa fy;k] ckn esa lkspk fd dksbZ vkneh crk;sxk ugha fd tSlk fd vHkh vki crk jgs Fks - - ;s lc fLFkfr;ka cuh ljA xksih pan lkc us dkQh liksVZ dj jgs gS a oks cspkjs cksys eSa vHkh vkmWxk crkmxk] ,s lj\ rks lj gesa D;k fey ldrk gS ,slk dqN tks gekjs fMQsal esa dke vk tk; x x x x x x ih&ugha HkkbZlkc ns[kksa] vkius dgk Fkk fd MkbZoj rks vkidk gh Fkk oks equsUnz& M~kbZoj Fkk] gekjs ikl vkt Hkh gS oks ih&vc mlls eukst ls ckr dj ds ns[k ysrs ,d ckjA eukst rks eq>ls ;s dg jgk Fkk fd oks equsUnz HkkbZ lkgc us dgk Fkk] e a=h th ds dgus is] rks eS aus ,slk dg fn;k equsUnz&esjh ckr lquks] xkSre th gS a blesa bUokYc] Bhd gS\ exj eSa vdsys dksbZ fMfltu ysus esa l{ke ugha gSwa] Hkxor th fMlhtu ysus esa l{ke gS] Hkxor th us dg fn;k fd xkSre th tSlk dgsa oSlk djksa] gSa uk\ ih&ugha HkkbZ lkc] eukst rks ;s dg jgk Fkk fd geus rks equsUnz HkkbZ lkgc ds dgus ls ,slk dg fn;k equsUnz&gwWa ih&tks eukst dk dguk gS oks rks ;s gS fd geus equsUnz HkkbZ lkgc ds dgus ls fd;k gS] vkSj mUgksaus] ea=h th us muls dgk equsUnz ls] equsUnz us eq>ls dgkA ;s ckr dg jgk Fkk eq>ls] vkSj dg jgk Fkk fd eSa rks dj ugha jgk Fkk fQj oks ;s Hkh crk jgk Fkk fd oks muds lax vk, Fks vkSj mudh otg ls oks 25&30 gtkj :i;s yMdh Mky x;h tcjnLrh foi.kZk gekjs ikl] ;s Hkh dg jgk Fkk eukst eq>lsA equsUnz& gwWa ih&rks oks dg jgk Fkk fd ge tks dqN djsaxs oks lc muds dgus ls gh djsxs rks vki tkurs gks HkkbZ lkc cxSj eryc ds - - - vkSj ;s vc rks foi.kZk dks ekywe gS fd fdlus eMZj fd;k gS] dSls fd;k gS] lc dsl [kqy pqdk gS vkSj vki - - -baLisDVj txnh'k vjksjk gSa vkSj tks yksx gSa ogkWa ij] lc dqN iwjk dsl ekywe gS] eSa le>rk gwWa foi.kkZ dks Hkh ekywe gksxkA vki foi.kkZ ls ckr djds ns[k ysrs ,d ckj HkkbZ lkc gks tkrk rks equsUnz&vkids ikfjokfjd fj'rs jgs gS a rks vki ckr djksa u foi.kkZ th ls ,d ckj ih&,slk gS u] eSa ckr d:Wa ysfdu oks - - tc FkksMk lk vki yksx dgsaxs rks -- - vxj oks rS;kj gks rks ge ckr djus dks rS;kj gSa] gekjk rks drbZ futh ekeyk Fkk equsUnz&gkWa ikfjokfjd eSVj Fkk ikfjokjh fj'rs Fks vkids vkSj vkids fyad ,sls jgs gksaxs - - pwWafd vki vxj ifjokj esa bl rjg jgs gSa rks fj'rsnkjh esa Hkh laca/k gksaxs ih&fcydqy HkkbZ lkc] lc laca/k gSa equsUnz& ,d ckj cSB dj fuiVkjk djks] [kRe djks gS a u\ tks mudk ysu nsu gS ;k tks mudk nsuk gS ih&ugha oks lkjk ipkZ eSus mudks ns fn;k vkSj mlus vius c;kuks esa Hkh dgk gS vki - - vki gh ckr dj yhft, equsUnz& gwWa gwWa ih&HkkbZ lkjh phtsa muds uke gSa] tks izkiVhZ muds uke gS foi.kkZ ds uke gS] mudh eka ds uke gS vkSj lkjk ipkZ mlds ikl gS] oks dgsa vkSj ge rks ;s Hkh pkgrs gSa fd muds eMZj ds tks yksx nks"kh gSa mudh ltk Hkh gks equsUnz&gwWa ih&gekjs ikl lkjs lkcwr gSa] oks ge mls ns nsaxsA eSaus mlls dgk] eSaus OgkVl,I is dbZ ckj eSlst Hkh fd;s] eSus dgk ik:y] foi.kkZ ds ?kj dk uke ik:y gS] eSaus dgk xgjkbZ ls lksapksa] fpUru djksA iwNks vf/kdkfj;ksa ls] vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lc ekywe gS equsUnz&gwWa] D;k cksyh fQj\ ih&ugha] eSlst lhu rk s dj ysrh Fkh oks] tokc ugh a fn;k dqN Hkh] eSus cgqr ckj eSlst fd;s equsUnz&gkWa tks Hkh iSlk ysuk nsuk gS] ns nok ds ckr [kRe djks fuiVkvksa cSB ds vkil esa gS u\ ih& HkkbZlkc eSaus oks i wjk fglkc ns j[kk gS mls] ok s dg sa rk s ge mldk s dgk a euk dj jg s gS aA geus rks ;s Hkh dgk fd vxj rqEgs izkiVhZ ugh a pkfg, rks tks ,ekm.V gS] oks ys yhft, vkSj - - equsUnz& ,ekm.V fdruk cu jgk gS] vkids Åij mudk\ ih&,sa\ equsUnz&,ekm.V fdruk cu jgk gS\ ih&'kk;n] ,XtsDV ugha irk] ckdh rks mldks ekywe gS] iwjk ipkZ cukds iwjk cqdysV cuk ds iwjk lc ns vk;s gSa ge mls] equsUnz& ugha yxHkx fdruk cuk jgk gS vkids fglkc ls yxHkx] iwjk ,XtsDV ugha yxHkx fdruk cu jgk gS ih&yxHkx - - - izkWiVhZ vxj yxkrs gSa] oSls rks geus muls tks :i;k fy;k Fkk] pkyhl yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;k fy;k Fkk mlesa ls ckdh muds uke izkiVhZ gS rks oks vxj iwjk :i;k pkgrs gSa rks iwjk :i;k nsus dks rS;kj gS a] izkWiVhZ ge - - - oks csp ns oks ys ys] ;k fQj izkWiVhZ ysuk pkgrh gks tks iSlk fudkys oks iSlk ys ys viuk] HkkbZ lkc ge rks de dh ckr NksMks] ,DLV~k dgsa] ,DLV~k Hkh ns nsaxs] dksbZ fnDdr ugh a gS ges] ysfdu ge pkgrs gSa fd ;s dke t:j djsa fd tks yksx nks"kh gSa mudks t:j blesa nf.Mr gksuk pkfg, cl] bruk pkgrs gSa ge rks - - - rks vki ,d ckj ckr djds ns[k yhft, fd ,sls ,sls esjs ikl Qksu vk;k Fkk ih0lh0 'kekZ dkA vki pkgks rks ge cjsyh vk tk;sxs mlds ikl] vxj oks vki ds ikl vk tkrh gS rks cjsyh vk tk;sxs ge equsUnz& eSa ckr djrk gwWa gSa u\ x x x x x x equsUnz&ugha tks vkius Mk0 vfer ls dgk fd esjs ikl ,foMsUl gS] D;k ,ohMsUl gSa\ ih& eSa vc Hkh dg jgk gwW u] eSa vc Hkh rks dg jgk gwWa] euk rks ugha dj jgk gwW] eSaus vfer th ls ugha] foi.kkZ th dks eSaus OgkV~l,i is eSlst fd;s gSa ;s] mUgksaus esjk csy dSflys'ku ewo fd;k gS ogkWa ij ;s lkjh phts yxh gqbZ gSaA gkbZdksVZ iwNsxk rks gkbZdksVZ esa fn[kkmWxk&crkmWxkA vki iwfN;sxk vfer th ls] foi.kkZ th us gkbZdksVZ esa gekjk csy dSflys'ku ewo dj fn;k gS vkSj mlesa lkjh phts yxk;h tks eSaus OgkV~l,i ij eSlst fd;s Fks] rks gkbZdksVZ us eq>s uksfVl fn;k gS] gkbZdksVZ tc eq>ls iwNsxk rks gkbZdksVZ esa crkmWxk] equsUnz& gwW gwW x x x x x x equsUnz& ysfdu ml fnu tc vkils dgk rc Hkh vkius ugha crk;k fd ,foMUl D;k gS\ fQj Mk0 vfer ls vki dg jgs ,foMsUl D;k gS] vc ;k rks vki crkuk ugha pkg jgs gks ,foMsUl D;k gSA vxj vki enn pkgrs gks rks eq>s crk nks u ,foMsUl D;k gS fQj eSa ckr dj ywWxk muls fd xyr vkneh dks Qalk;k gS ;k lgh vkneh dks Qalk;k gS] ;s ckr rc r; gksxh tc ,foMsUl gksxs ih&ns[kk ,slk gS u HkkbZ lkgc] vkius bruh ckr dgh tc eSa dg jgk gwWa fd eSus eq>s /;ku ls lqfu;s eS aus foi.kkZ th dks OgkV~l,i ij eSlst fd;s fd esjs ikl lcwr gS a esjs ikl lc pht gS] Bhd \ equsUnz&HkkbZ] HkkbZ vPNk lquks] lquks - - - tks foi.kkZ th dks D;k eSlst fd;s vkius D;k ugha fd;s bl ckr ls eq>s eryc ugha gS fd esjs ikl lcwr gS] tc vki eq>ls enn pkg jgs gks fd foi.kkZ ls ckr d:Wa eSa foi.kkZ th ls vki ;s pkg jgs gks fd esjs ikl ,foMsUl gS fQj vfer ls dg jgs gks esjs ikl ,foMsUl gS] rks crkvksa u] crk nks vki] vkt gh ckr dj ywWxk vHkh ih& ugha rks eSa ;gh rks pkg jgk gwWa] vki mUgsa cqyk fyft, eSa vk tkmWxk] vki gksaxs equsUnz& ugha ;s rks cqykus dh ckr ckn esa gksxh] ,d pht ekurs gks fd gR;k rks gqbZ gS] bl ifjokj esa lcls cM+h ysMh Fkh lcds iwjs Äj dk tks Fkk] iwjk ifjokj vukFk gks x;k] cq x x x x x x equsUnz&vki Hkh eku jgs gS eMZj gqvk gS ih&eS a eku jgk gwWa eMZj gqvk gS] vjs eSaus dqN lcwr bDV~Bs fd;s gS a rHkh rks crk jgk gwWa eSa\^^ “Gopichand-Hello P-Hi, Namaskar sir P-Is Gopichand sir speaking? Gopichand-Yes. P-Yes, Sir, I am P.C. Sharma speaking. Gopichand-Say. P-Yes, Sir, I had interacted with you in the Sadhna murdercase. Sir, please defend me a little. Sir, please tell some details. Gopichand-You are now talking afterwards...... You are calling at this time. Call in the evening. P-Should I call you in the evening? Gopichand-Yes. P – Ok Sir, Sir, you are coming to Budaun Shishupal was also telling, sir Pahalwan was also telling that you are about to come Budaun, sir, I wanted to sit with you and talk. Gopichand – Ok, I will come will tell, it is only because of this that I am telling to talk in the evening. P-Sir, when to do in the evening, sir? Gopichand-At about seven. Ni- Ok sir, Jay Hind Sir. x x x x x P-Sir, wanted to meet you someday sir, I wanted to see you in case you are to come to Bareilly or Budaun someday. Gopichand- No, presently I am at Deyoria Kalan. P-No, Sir that I know sir, I had asked AK Singh Saab. Sir, I wanted to meet you a little. Gopichand- Tell, Tell P-Oh, Sir in connection with this very case now we … whatever was to happen to us has happened. Sir now … we need some such points...something which may give strength to us, so that I can prove myself innocent. Gopichand-Ok I will tell you...will tell. As of now I am here at Deyoria Kalan. x x x x Naresh Pal – Hallo P- Hallo, Jayhind Sir Naresh Pal – Jayhind brother P—Sir, is Naresh Pal Singh Saab speaking? Naresh Pal- Yes brother, I am speaking. P- Sir, I am PC Sharma speaking from Budaun. Naresh Pal- Ok, tell. P-Sir, does Saab visit Budaun now? Sir, I wanted to meet you Saab. Naresh Pal- Tell, tell. P- Did Saab recognize, did not recognize? Naresh Pal- No, you tell .. tell. P- Yes, yes... sir, I have been implicated in Sadhna murder case. Naresh Pal- Ok, ok. P-Whatever was destined, has taken place, I have undergone the imprisonment. Gangster Act was leveled and I have undergone that too, sir. Naresh Pal- Yes, yes. Naresh Pal- Tell, tell. P- Did Saab recognize, did not recognize? Naresh Pal- No, you tell .. tell. P- Yes, yes... sir, I have been implicated in Sadhna murder case. Naresh Pal- Ok, ok. P-Whatever was destined, has taken place, I have undergone the imprisonment. Gangster Act was leveled and I have undergone that too, sir. Naresh Pal- Yes, yes. P-Sir, in this regard I want that if I could get some such information from you because I have not committed any offense sir; I had talked to AK Singh sahab as well and he assured that he would tell whatever happens and would help. Sir, I wanted to meet you and have a chat with you a bit. Naresh Pal- No. What is to be done... tell me what to do? P-Sir I...now you will tell, what I sir... how could I get something in my defense. Naresh Pal- You have been granted bail, isn't it? P-Sir, you see that the Judicial is very strict now-a-days, giving punishment, I have not committed any offense and have been punishment. x x x x x P-Sir, I have to tell you only that how they managed such as the Tavera vehicle; I had talks with Surendra also, and he too, was saying that it was brought from the hospital. x x x x x P- No sir, you are not a witness. Sir, that is why I am saying that you could give me some tips that could be useful in my defense; might be extracted something which I... Naresh Pal-See sir, the thing is that if I peruse the case diary, I could find some points in that. It is not a big issue. Just take the case diary and it should be read and perused then some... P-Sir... the vehicle was shown to have been recovered from your place; it was not shown means I came to know that it was... Naresh Pal- No, paper work was not done at my place. P- Yes, yes. Naresh Pal-I had not done any paper work; If the matter is of Ujhani, let the people of Ujhani handle it. P-No sir... Surendra.... I had complete conversation with Surendra the Better, on which he also … Yes he also disclosed that car was in the name of some lady and we were implicated unnecessarily. I …..... such things do happen so leave it. P-No sir... Surendra.... I had complete conversation with Surendra the Better, on which he also … Yes he also disclosed that car was in the name of some lady and we were implicated unnecessarily. I …..... such things do happen so leave it. On this he told me that this was not the car, car had been brought from hospital and that person himself called on which I cam to know that you had no information, I have been told that you were having meal, such was informed to me by someone and he telephoned you that an accident of a lady was committed by me. Naresh Pal- Yes Yes P-You took him lightly at that time, later on thought that no person would disclose anything as you were telling right now.. Sir such circumstances got woven. Gopi Chand Sir have been very supportive, poor guy said that I shall arrive right now and tell, hello Sir? So Sir what can we gather which can help us in our defence. x x x x x P- No See, you had said that the driver was your's only Munendra- Driver was there; he is with me even today P-Now we can for once, try to talk to him, to Manoj. Manoj was telling me that Munendra Sir had said that, I said such thing on verbal directions of minister. Munendra-Listen to me, Gautam is also involved in it ok ? However I am not competent alone to take the decision, Bhagwat Ji is competent to take the decision, Bhagwat ji had said that proceed as per the directions of Gautam, ok? P-No Sir, Manoj was saying that we said such thing on the verbal directions of Mundendra Sir. Munendra- Hmm P-What Manoj is saying is that we proceeded on the directions of Munendra Sir who in turn got the green signal from minister and Munendra directed me. He was telling me this and said that I was not doing it, then he also disclosed that he arrived with him and due to him, that lady forcefully gave me 25-30 thousand rupees viparna(?), Manoj was also telling me Munendra-Hmm P-Thus he was telling that we shall only act on his directions so you know Sir that without any axe to grind..... and now even Viparna knows that who committed the murder, how was it committed, case has been unravelled in totality and You............ Inspector is Jagdish Arora and other persons who are there know about the entire case and I think that Viparna would also be knowing. Brother, if possible, please talk to Viparna once. Munendra-you are relative, so you please talk to Viparnaji once. P-If you say...... I will talk... if he is ready, we are ready to talk, it was strictly our personal matter. Munendra-Yes, it was a family matter, family relations, your link would have been such.... since you have been in a family in such a way, there must be relations as well. P- Definitely brother, all are relations. Munendra-Wrap it up once for all, put it to an end, right? Whatever be the transactions, or whatever has to pay ? P-No, I have given him all parchas and he has stated in his depositions you … you may talk Munendra- Yes P-Brother, all the things are executed in his favour, property executed in his favour is executed in favour of Viparna, his mother and all parchas are with him, we want that those who are guilty of murder be punished Munendra- Yes P-We have all the evidences, we shall furnish these to him. I stated to him, I send messages on WhatsApp too, I stated that Viparna's nickname is Parul, I asked to think thoroughly, ask the officers, they know everything Munendra- Yes, what did she say then? Pi-No, she saw messesage but did not reply; I messaged many times. Munendra:-Yes, whatever you have to pay, pay it and put it to an end. Pi-Brother, I have already given him the complete account and if he asks then I am not refusing him. I have even said that if he does not require property, accept the amount whatever and............. Munendra:- How much amount is due to him ? Pi-A? Munendra - What is the amount ? P-perhaps, I don't know exactly, he knows the rest, we have already handed over everything including the complete receipt and booklet to him. Munendra -No, according to you, how much it is approximately, not exactly, but tell me approximately how much is it ? P-approximately...if we evaluate the property, anyway, the money we had received from him was forty lakh fifty thousand. Munendra -No, according to you, how much it is approximately, not exactly, but tell me approximately how much is it ? P-approximately...if we evaluate the property, anyway, the money we had received from him was forty lakh fifty thousand. Rest out of it amounts the property in his name. In that condition, if he wants full amount, we are ready to give him the money. If we … the property.... she sells it, she can take it or if she wants property, she can takes the money of its sale. Dear, we do not want to give less rather we will give extra if she says so, we have no problem. But we want that she must get the people punished who are guilty in this. We want this much only. ….... so, you please talk to her and try to convince explaining that in such way P. C. Sharma's call came to me. We will come to her in Bareilly if you want us to and if she comes to you, we will come to Bareilly. Munendra – I will talk to her, ok ? x x x x x x Munendra – Listen me, do have any evidence as you spoke to Dr. Amit that you had evidence ? P – I am still saying, ain't I, I still saying it, am I denying?, I have sent these messages to Viparna on WhatsApp not Amit. She has moved my bail cancellation, all these things have been attached there. I will explain in the High Court if I am asked to do so. You please ask Amit whether Aparna has moved out bail cancellation in High Court and enclosed everything what I had messaged her on WhatsApp. High Court has sent me a notice, when the High Court will ask me, I will explain it there. x x x x x Munendra – but on that day, you didn't tell me when I asked you what the evidences were ? Then you asking Dr. Amit what was the evidence? Now may be you do not want to tell me what the evidence is? If you want to help me, tell me what the evidence is, and then I will speak to him whether an innocent has been implicated or a guilty has been caught. This will be decided when evidences exist. Amit what was the evidence? Now may be you do not want to tell me what the evidence is? If you want to help me, tell me what the evidence is, and then I will speak to him whether an innocent has been implicated or a guilty has been caught. This will be decided when evidences exist. P – See dear, I have said so much, now, I am asking you to listen me carefully that I have messaged it to Aparna on WhatsApp that I have the evidences and I have everything, ok ? Munendra-Brother, brother, please listen, listen...it does not matter to me what message you sent to Viparna Ji and what not, and that I have evidence, when you want help from me to the effect that I should talk to Viparna; you want it from Viparna Ji that I have evidence (sic.), then you are telling to Amit that you have evidence, then tell please, you tell (me), (I) will talk today itself right now. P-No, I just want that you call him, I will come, you will be present. Munendra-No, the matter of calling would be discussed later on, you accept one thing that the death has been caused, she was the eldest lady in this family, amongst all in the home; the entire family became orphan, there are old mother, disabled sister, mentally disabled; the only girl is doing everything, and how the poor girl is managing the same, only she must be knowing, isn't it? x x x x x x Munendra-You too are admitting that the death has been caused. P-I am admitting, the death has been caused; I have collected some evidences, therefore I am stating. (English Translation by Court) 42. The above conversations show that opposite party 2 is not only contacting witnesses but also involving Police officials to influence witnesses and this is a serious aspect. In my view, such a person if continue to remain on bail, there is every likelihood of trial being influenced and may not proceed fairly and objectively. I refrain myself in making further observations as it may prejudice trial but have no hesitation in holding that it is a fit case where bail granted to accused opposite party 2 cannot be held to be a valid exercise of discretion and bail deserves to be cancelled. 43. Application is accordingly allowed. I refrain myself in making further observations as it may prejudice trial but have no hesitation in holding that it is a fit case where bail granted to accused opposite party 2 cannot be held to be a valid exercise of discretion and bail deserves to be cancelled. 43. Application is accordingly allowed. Bail order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41324 of 2016, whereby opposite party 2, Prem Chandra Sharma son of Late Banshidhar Sharma, has been enlarged on bail, is hereby cancelled. The accused-opposite party 2 shall surrender in Court below on 20.03.2020. If not, Police shall ensure arrest of accused-opposite party 2 and send him jail. Trial Court shall expedite trial and make all endeavour to complete it within a year.