Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1084 (ALL)

Shashank Sharma v. State of U. P.

2025-09-01

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra alongwith Sri Vishvendra Singh learned counsel for the informant-applicant, Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ch. Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Sri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material on record. 2. The instant bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of the informant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 vide order dated 01.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7139 of 2024 (Ishant Tyagi @ Vasu Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 803 of 2023 under Sections 147 , 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 120-B, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-informant submits that concerned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in spite of making specific observation in its bail order dated 01.01.2025 to the effect that the recovery of Rs. 8 lacs has been made from the possession of the opposite party no. 2 and he is the main accused, has granted bail to the opposite party no. 2 merely on the ground that all the accused persons have been granted bail. Learned counsel further argued that the accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail were not named in the F.I.R. and from their possession nothing had been recovered. Learned counsel further argued that the opposite party no.2 is the main accused, as has also been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, and that recovery has been made from his possession to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in a very casual manner, without considering the gravity of allegation, granted bail to the accused opposite party no.2. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge may be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 of a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajwar Vs. Waseem and another , 2024 (10) SCC 768 . Those paragraphs read as below:- 26. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge may be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 of a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajwar Vs. Waseem and another , 2024 (10) SCC 768 . Those paragraphs read as below:- 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another (2004) 7 SCC 525 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another(supra); Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 14 SCC 286 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014)16 SCC 508 ; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2018) 12 SCC 129 ; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another(supra). 27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another(supra) decided by a three judges bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) of the CrPC in the following words: "24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate court." 28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three-Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Ram Bilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338 ); Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another (2008) 13 SCC 584 . (emphasis supplied) 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-informant thus argued that the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad while granting bail to the accused-opposite party no.2 did not consider the parameters for granting bail to the accused-opposite party no.2 and in a very cursory and routine manner granted bail to the accused-opposite party no.2, therefore the bail order is liable to be set aside and the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ch.Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the learned Court of Sessions, Ghaziabad granted bail to the accused-opposite party no.2. 5. On the other hand, Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ch.Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the learned Court of Sessions, Ghaziabad granted bail to the accused-opposite party no.2. Learned counsel further submits that in catena of judgement Hon'ble Apex Court has held that consideration of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different and bail granted to the accused can only be cancelled, if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, the accused has misused the liberty of bail; flouted the conditions of bail order; that the bail granted was in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; and that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud, whereas in the present case none of such situation occurred. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, that the learned Court of Sessions while granting bail to the accused-opposite party no.2 has specifically observed that recovery of Rs. 8 lacs has been made from the possession of the opposite party no.2 and he is the main accused and that all the accused persons have been granted bail, is concerned, learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery is not supported by any independent witness. The learned court below observed that from a perusal of the FIR, the opposite party no. 2 appears to be the main accused when as a matter of fact, there is no such findings that the opposite party no.2 is the main accused. Furthermore the opposite party no. 2 has not been granted bail on the ground of parity and therefore the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant has no force. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon paragraph no. 11 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 (4) SCC 222 , which is quoted below:- "11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. 11 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2024 (4) SCC 222 , which is quoted below:- "11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c ) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed." 6. Learned Senior Counsel thus argued that the order passed by learned Court of Sessions, by which the accused-opposite party no.2 has been granted bail is perfectly legal, just and proper, which calls for no interference by this Court and therefore the instant bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected. 7. The main thrust, for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party no.2, of learned counsel for the applicant is upon paragraph no.10 of the bail order dated 01.01.2025, which is quoted below:- 8. So far as recovery of Rs. 8 lacs is concerned, the same is not supported by any independent witness, whereas the observation made by learned Sessions Court that ^^izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd ;g bl izdj.k dk eq[; vfHk;qDr gSA^^ recorded by the learned Sessions Court, but a narration of the FIR allegation, according to which the opposite party no. 2 appears to be the main accused. Furthermore the observation ^^yxHkx leLr vfHk;qDrx.k dh tekur bl U;k;ky; vFkok ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls Lohdkj gks pqdh gSA^^ that is only a fact noted by the learned Sessions Judge and the opposite party no. 2 has not been granted bail on the ground of parity. Thus the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant has no force and reliance of learned counsel for the applicant upon paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the judgement rendered in the matter of Ajwar (supra) does not come to the aid of the applicant, in the present case. So far as paragraph no. Thus the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant has no force and reliance of learned counsel for the applicant upon paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the judgement rendered in the matter of Ajwar (supra) does not come to the aid of the applicant, in the present case. So far as paragraph no. 28 of the aforesaid judgement is concerned that pertains to consideration for setting aside the bail order with respect to the conduct of accused while on bail any attempt on the part of accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses or tampering with the evidence in any manner, which has also not been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant. In Ajwar (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Courts may remain cautious while granting bail to the accused and avoid making such detailed reasoning as may prejudice the accused and only prima facie case has to be seen at the stage of bail. Besides the fact that the offence alleged is triable by Magistrate, none of the grounds enumerated in the above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court for considering cancellation of bail granted is available, in the present facts, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for cancelling the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 01.01.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, District Ghaziabad. 9. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application lacks merit and is rejected.