Y.K.SANGAL, J. - (1.) THESE are two separate applications for cancellation of the bail, moved by the informant of the case Shiv Mohan Gupta in Case Crime No. 117 of 2005 relating to Session Trial No. 483 of 2006, under Sections 304 B, 498-A IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jhunsi, district Allahabad. Bail was granted to two accused Heera Lal Gupta and Rajesh Gupta who are Sasur and husband of the deceased, under the order of Sessions Judge and this Court vide order dated 04.08.2005 and 10.04.2006 respectively.
(2.) AN FIR was lodged against the respondent no. 2 of both cases and others with the averments that for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, they have committed dowry death of Sister of the informant. Poison was administered to her by the family members of the respondent No. 2 of cases. Police started investigation in the matter and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Informant of the case, Sheo Mohan Gupta filed applications for cancellation of their bail with the averments that they both begin to give tamper to the applicant and other witnesses of the criminal case and making pressure upon them to withdraw the criminal case. Respondent no. 2 (husband) lodged number of cases against the applicants and his family members. Application under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was moved and a writ petition of Habeas Corpus was filed before this court. An Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was also filed involving the applicant and his father and another case under section 504 and 427 IPC. Trial court was informed about these misdeeds of the respondents but trial court shown its inability saying that they are already on bail by this court. On 01.02.2007 when father of the applicant was going to attend the date in the court suddenly by Motor-cycle, Rajesh Gupta and two other un-known persons came there and given ultimatum either to compromise in the matter or to withdraw the criminal case. Again on 05.02.2007 when the father of the applicant was going to attend the date in the trial court, on the point of country made Pistol, he was threatened for the same. As the accused persons are on bail, it will not be safe and for security of the informant and his Father to keep them on bail and therefore prayed, their bail liberty be cancelled.
(3.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits in both the cases were exchanged. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. As both the cases relate to the same crime number, hence the same are being taken simultaneously. Shri B.L. Gupta is father of the informant and deceased both. It is undisputed fact that he is a practising Advocate in Civil Court, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Rajesh had argued that it is very easy for Shri Gupta to manipulate such type of application for cancellation of bail with his resources. All the facts relating to alleged misuse of liberty of bail by the accused persons, narrated in both the applications relates to the occurrences said to have taken place in the year, 2007. Now it is 2010. In between the year, 2008 to 2010, learned counsel for the applicant had failed to show anything on record that the accused persons did anything which would warrant the cancellation of bail by this Court. It was further argued on behalf of the respondents that it appears that the applicant and his father who is a practising Advocate were aggrieved of the orders passed by the Session Judge and this court granting bail. They thus wanted the cancellation of the bail only on this cause that how they are roaming freely, although criminal case is pending against them.;