UNION OF INDIA Vs. YOGENDRA SINGH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications under Sec. 439(2) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents under Sec. 439 CrPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.06, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, vide order dtd. 7/12/2020 and 11/12/2020 respectively, have been filed by the applicant.

(2.) Sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the first bail application of the accused-petitioners was dismissed by the learned Court vide its order dtd. 1/12/2020; but, they were extended benefit of bail while entertaining their second bail applications just six days and ten days respectively thereafter vide order dtd. 7/12/2020 and 11/12/2020 respectively. He submitted that in the interregnum there was no change in circumstance except lapse of few days. He, therefore, prayed for cancellation of bail extended to accused-petitioners vide order dtd. 7/12/2020 and 11/12/2020 respectively.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent submitted that the contention is wholly misconceived inasmuch as vide order dtd. 1/12/2020, the bail application of the accused-respondents was dismissed by the learned trial Court under Sec. 437 CrPC; whereas, they have been extended benefit of bail by the learned Sessions Court under Sec. 439 CrPC and hence, it is not a case of entertaining second bail applications by the same Court within a period of few days without there being substantial change in circumstance. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application seeking cancellation of bail.