- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard Sri C. P. Tripathi for the applicant and Sri D. N. Yadav, who appears for the accused Samarjeet and Shyamdhar against whom show cause notice has been issued by this Court as to why the bail granted to them by the Sessions Judge by the order dated 10. 4. 1998be not cancelled.
(2.) LEARNED AG. A, has also been heard. This is second bail application moved on behalf of the accused Hira Lal Saroj, who is confined in Jail in connection with Case Crime No. 87 of 1998 under Sections 376, 120-B I. P. C. , P. S. Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) from 1. 4. 1998. It is not disputed that the trial is still pending. First bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the order dated 13-5-1998. The main submis sion made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time when first bail application was rejected, the order of the Sessions Judge dated 10. 4. 1998 granting bail to the co- accused Samarjeet and Shyamdhar could not be brought to the notice of this Court and since the case of the applicant is identical to that of accused Samarjeet, he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity because as per the prosecution case the prosecutrix has made allegation of rape against both these ac cused persons. By the order, dated 18-8-2000, this Court issued notice to accused Shyamdhar and Samarjeet to show cause why bail granted to them be not cancelled. In response to the said notice they have filed counter-affidavit.
(3.) SR. D. N. Yadav, learned counsel for the accused Samarjeet and Shyamdhar submitted before this Court that bail has been allowed to the aforesaid accused per sons by the learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order and cogent and valid reasons have been advanced for granting bail. Relying upon the apex Court's decision in Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra, AIR 1999 S. C. 3026, it was urged that different considerations arise while considering the application for can cellation of bail and application of grant of bail. For cancellation of bail there should be very cogent and overwhelming cir cumstances. In the present case there is no material whatsoever to show that these ac cused persons have misused the liberty as bail granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that the eye witnesses have been examined including the prosecutrix and therefore, there is no danger of tampering of evidence and the Sessions trial is pending only due to non appearance of the investigating officer. This Court has perused the order of the learned Sessions Judge whereby bail was granted to the accused Samarjeet and Shyamdhar. It is well settled that once bail has been allowed it should not be cancelled merely because a different view may be possible on the facts of the case. The bail of accused can be cancelled in suitable cases where the conscience of this Court revolts against the grant of bail or the order of the Court below granting bail is on the face absurd or perverse.;