Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar, JJ. - (1.)Leave granted
(2.)We have perused the order dated Dec. 20, 2002, granting bail to the respondent Kalu Naresh. The High Court while granting bail observed that his case is identical to that of Raju Tyagi who, it appears had already been granted bail by the High Court by an order dated 2.3.2001. A copy of the order dated 2.3.2001 granting bail to Raju Tyagi has been placed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have perused the same. A bare reading of the order dated 2.3.2001 would indicate that the case of Raju Tyagi and the respondent Kalu @ Naresh in not similar. They have been assigned different weapons and some explanation was put forward to explain the injury which could be caused by knife said to be held by Raju Tyagi.
(3.)An application seems to have been moved in this Court for cancellation of bail to Raju Tyagi. This Court observed that it would be better that the High Court would decide the appeal expeditiously. That order was passed on 4.4.2002 and the appeal is still pending. Thereafter, we find some subsequent developments have also taken place, namely, the complainant has moved the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, indicating in the complaint made that threats were being extended by Kalu and two such occasions have been indicated in the complaint. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, in view, it is a fit case where the bail of the respondent deserves to be cancelled.