Should we can fight with the support of that judgement
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28131 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt.Rekha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Santosh Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the record.
This present bail cancellation application has been filed with a prayer to set aside the bail granted by order dated 21.09.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Auraiya in Case Crime No. C-61/2008, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Auraiya, district Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the present case by concealment of fact, the opposite party No.2 filed application (482 Cr.P.C.) No. 21082 of 2011 which was disposed of with the direction that the consideration of the bail application of the applicant be decided within 20 days, if applicant appears before the court concerned within the stipulated period. An earlier criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16623 of 2008 was filed in which the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre vide order dated 15.09.2008, however, the mediation was failed. Thereafter, an application (482 Cr.P.C.) No. 19008 of 2009 was filed, challenging the proceeding, in which the applicant was granted liberty to move an application for discharge and further direction was that if the applicant appears before the court concerned within 30 days from 26.08.2009, the bail application shall be considered expeditiously, if possible, on the same day. The opposite party No.2 did not surrender within the stipulated period of 30 days and by concealment of this fact, he filed another application (482 Cr.P.C.) No. 21082 of 2011 which was disposed of on 06.07.2011. Thereafter, he surrendered before the court concerned in compliance of the order dated 06.07.2011 and he was released on bail by the court below by order dated 21.09.2011. Hence, the bail application of the opposite party No.2 is liable to be cancelled.
From perusal of the record and bail granting order dated 21.09.2011, it is clear that� there was no allegation regarding concealment of fact in the bail application before the court from where the bail application was allowed by order dated 21.09.2011 even without any direction , the bail application can be considered by the court below. If there was any concealment of fact in the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. then the applicant was free to move an application before the appropriate Bench for recall of the order or for passing afresh order.
There is no good ground to cancel the bail of opposite party No.2, hence, it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail at this stage.
The bail cancellation application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 31.10.2011/Sunil Kr Tiwari