RAM SEVAK GUPTA STATE OF U P Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2001-11-24
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 27,2001

RAM SEVAK GUPTA : STATE OF U P Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. List revised. Learned Counsel Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, for the petitioner Ram Sevak Gupta, Learned A. G. A. representing State of U. P. is also present; but none response for the opposite parties 2 and 3. Heard.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 Lal Bahadur and opposite party No. 3 Rakesh Kumar were granted bail by this Court on 15-1-99 and 12-1-99 respectively in Criminal Misc. Case No. 368 (B) of 1999 and Criminal 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. Complainant Ram Sevak Gupta, therefore, moved an application under sub-section (2) of Section 439 Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail of the opposite parties. This Court by order doted 15-1-2001 allowed the petition and cancelled the bail of the opposite parties 2 and 3 with the direction that the opposite parties 2 and 3 shall be taken into custody and on being taken into custody their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall stand discharged. The Sessions Judge, Lucknow was also directed to comply within three days. In compliance of the above order, the opposite parties 2 and 3 were taken into custody and sent to Jail. Then they moved an application through Shri B. M. Sahai, Advocate for recalling the above order dated 15-1-2001. This application was allowed vide order dated 10-4-2001 passed on the application of opposite parties 2 and 3 who were allowed an opportunity of being heard.
(3.) TODAY, the matter is listed for hearing the petition for cancellation of bail again. But none response for the opposite parties 2 and 3. There is nothing on record to indicate that the observations made in the order dated 15-1-2001 are not based on the facts and circumstances, which have been brought on record by the petitioner. So also there is no material, which may suggest that the bail of the opposite parties 2 and 3 should not be cancelled. All the relevant facts have already been reproduced in the order dated 15-1-2001.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.