Ganga Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This application for cancellation of bail has been filed with prayer to cancel the bail of accused/respondent no.2, granted by this court vide order dated 10.7.2006, passed in Criminal Appeal No.3723/2006, in S.T. No.58/2006, arising out of Case Crime No.173/2005, under Section 307/34 I.P.C. P.S. Nadigaon, District-Jalaun.

Despite personal service of notice and sufficient opportunity to defend himself, the accused/respondent no.2, neither turned up nor engaged any counsel to file counter affidavit in his defence. State has filed a counter affidavit.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused/respondent no.2, Amit Sharma, son of Suresh Sharma was convicted and sentenced with 7 years imprisonment under Section 307/34 I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 30.6.2006, passed in S.T. No.58/2006 by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 2, Jalaun at Orai. Against his conviction, the accused/respondent no.2, preferred an appeal before this Court and this Court released him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. However, after being released on bail, the accused/respondent no.2, again indulged in criminal activities and committed a number of offences. Thus, he has misused his liberty of bail, which is liable to be cancelled. In proof of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the copies of four F.I.R''s lodged by various persons against the accused/respondent no.2, which are Annexure Nos.4,5,6 and 7 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail cancellation application. It has further been alleged that the accused/respondent no.2, after being released, is continuously threatening the applicant and his family members of dire consequences.

On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the bail of the accused/respondent no.2, be cancelled, in view of the violation of conditions imposed by this Court, while granting him bail, one of such being that, the applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity after his release.

The State has filed counter affidavit and the State has also requested that the bail granted to the accused/respondent no.2 be cancelled in view of his involvement in four criminal cases subsequent to his release on bail. The details of which are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit.

Considered the submissions.

The well settled legal position regarding cancellation of bail is that the criteria for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail stand on different footings and a bail granted should not be cancelled in a routine manner. Section 437 (5) Cr. P.C. provides for cancellation of bail, if a court considers it necessary to do so.

In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, the Apex Court has enumerated the grounds for cancellation of bail which are as follows:-

"(i) The 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. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive."

In Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 Cri. L.J. 1359, the Apex Court observed as under:

"While granting bail to an accused, the courts repose a confidence in him that he would not tamper with the course of justice and will not indulge once again in criminal activities.

�....It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled."

Now reverting to the facts of the present application, it is clearly evident that the trust reposed on the accused-respondent, has been betrayed by him as he has repeated the criminal activities, in clear violation of condition imposed on him while granting him liberty of bail, that he will not indulge in any criminal activity after his release. This fact is also evident from a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly showing that the accused-respondent, after his release on bail, vide order dated 10.7.2006, passed by this Court, has been involved in four other criminal cases including two cases under Section 307 I.P.C.

It is also noteworthy that despite ample time, opportunity after personal service of notice, the accused-respondent did not appear to counter the allegations made against him.

As the State in its counter affidavit has also prayed to cancel the bail of accused-respondent and as the allegations made against the applicant are uncontroverted, this court has reasons to believe that the accused-respondent has violated the conditions and has betrayed the confidence reposed on him while granting him bail.

As a result, the instant application for cancellation of bail deserves to be allowed and the bail granted to the accused-respondent is liable to be cancelled.

The application is allowed. The bail granted to the accused-respondent by this court vide order dated 10.7.2006, is hereby cancelled. His bail bonds are also cancelled and the sureties are discharged. The hearing of appeal be expedited. The accused-respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai is directed to take necessary measures to ensure the arrest of accused-respondent.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate by Fax for necessary action/compliance.