YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent No. 2 by this Court in case crime No. 115/2006 under Section 302, 307, 427, 120B, 216, 419, 420 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amended Act and also Section 5 of Explosive of Substance Act, P.S. Karanda, District Ghazipur in bail application No. 18004/2006 dated 22.06.2007. As per application case accused-respondent No. 2 Bheem Singh was released on bail in the aforesaid case under the orders of this Court on the following conditions "(1) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating first informant and other witnesses; (2) he shall cooperate with the investigation and speedy trial; (3) he shall not indulge in criminal activities or commission of any offence after being released on bail and he shall appear at the concerned police station in the first week of every two months". It was further stated in the application that accused has violated all the conditions and also misused the liberty of bail so liberty of bail is liable to be quashed. He has given detailed how he has violated the conditions imposed upon him.
(2.) AS per case of the application first condition was violated by him by tampering with the prosecution evidence of case crime No. 115/2006 by intimidating the first informant and other witnesses of the case. An FIR to this effect was lodged against him by Smt. Shusila Singh who is eye-witness of the case against the accused-respondent No. 2 Bheem Singh. Copy of the report was annexed with the application. From its perusal it reveals that on 18.06.2008 at about 5.30 PM when Smt. Shusila Singh who was Block Pramukh of Karanada Block at the relevant time returning from Block Karanada accused with one another unknown person met her and asked her to pay Rs. 1, 00, 000/- as Gunda Tax from the fund received in the block, if the same is not paid, the whole family of her will be done to death. On her this report a case was registered against the respondent No. 2 at police station concerned and he was arrested by the police and sent to jail. He applied to get released himself on bail but his first and second application to release on bail were rejected by the learned Session Judge. Copy of the orders of learned Session Judge Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 are annexed with the application. It was further pressed on behalf of applicant that respondent No. 2 is a right-hand man and a sharp-shooter of Mr. Mukhtiyar Ansari, Local MLA who is Mafia Don of Eastern U.P. In support of his this case Annexure-6 and Annexure-6A were filed. In Annexure-6A the criminal history of respondent No. 2 is given. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by Mahendra Pratap claiming himself as brother of respondent No. 2. Detail reply of Para No. 3 to 8 was not given on behalf of respondent No. 2 and it was simply said that at the time of hearing of the application for cancellation of bail, a reply shall be given. It was further said that police has not filed any report in support of case of applicant for cancellation of bail. It was further mentioned that in most of the cases referred in the history of respondent No. 2, he has been acquitted by the court concerned and applicant is also a harden criminal involved in several cases. Respondent No. 2 has never violated any of the condition imposed on him in the bail order. In another counter supplementary affidavit, it was pleaded on behalf of respondent No. 2 that in case crime No. 269/2008 registered on the application of Smt. Shusila Singh, he was already released on bail by this court vide order dated 17.10.2008. Copy of the order annexed with the affidavit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is correct that respondent No. 2 was released on bail in case crime No. 269/2008 under Section 386, 506 IPC but from the perusal of the order, it reveals that Court was of the opinion that if application for cancellation of bail is moved only then the allegations made against the respondent No. 2 to oppose the bail application will be seen.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the bail order of the accused in the present case, the last condition was that he shall appear at the concerned police station in the first week of every two months after release on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that respondent No. 2 has never complied this condition after release on bail. In both counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 has nowhere it is mentioned that after release on bail, he had appeared in police station at any time. Learned AGA argued that from the report received from the police station concerned, it is clear that respondent No. 2 has never complied this condition of release on bail. In the counter affidavit, it is mentioned on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that he is appearing on each date in the case before the court but nowhere it is mentioned that he had appeared in the police station in compliance of the condition. It is clearly shows that he has violated this condition of his release on bail.;