Nasimuddin, J. - (1.) Ram Sevak Gupta has moved this application for cancellation of bail, under sub-section (2) of section 439 Criminal Procedure Code read with section 482 Criminal Procedure Code of Lal Bahadur Yadav and Rakesh, who were granted bail by this Court on 15.1.1999 and 12.1.1999 respectively in Cri. Misc. Case No. 368 (B) of 1999 and Cri. Misc. Case No. 260 (B) of 1999 in Case Crime No. 203 of 1999 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chinhat district Lucknow. For the same purpose State of U.P. has also moved for cancellation of bail of Lal Bahadur aforementioned accused of the same case.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State were heard. Learned counsel for the accused persons Lal Bahadur Yadav and Rakesh did not appear to argue the case. However, earlier counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the two accused persons by Ram Sharan Pal. Learned VII .Addl. Sessions Judge, Lucknow before whom the cancellation of bail in the same matter was moved (being Cri. Misc. Case No. 45 of 1998) (in S.T. No. 1009 of 1997) rejected the application for cancellation of bail vide his order dated 6.5.1999. This order has also been challenged by the complainant-applicant. It may be pointed out here at this initial stage that the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.2.1999 by the aggrieved person in respect of occurrence of 9.2.1999 although the two accused were in jail on that day, and were released on bail only on 10.2.1999. This mistake, apparent on the face of the record, occurred due to the tact that in the heading of the F.I.R. of Crime No. 34 of 1999, dated 11.2.1999 the time of occurrence was written by the Police Clerk as 9.2.1999; but actually in the body of the F.I.R. the occurrence of threat etc. was mentioned to have taken place on the day of the lodging of the F.I.R. viz. on 11.2.1999; and it was only by way of reference that the occurrence of 9.2.1999 was referred to have taken place about the hurling of the abuses' after the parties has come out of the Court Room on the date fixed viz. 9.2.1999. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, was under some confusion and by some oversight could not read the actual text of the F.I.R. wherein the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on the very day on which the F.I.R. was taken down at the Police Station viz. 11.2.1999. This mistake occurred due to over-sight and is apparent on the face of record. The order passed by the learned VII Addl. Sessions Judge becomes as useless and ineffective and misconceived order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant took the court through the material on record in these two Miscellaneous cases.;