Shailendra Saksena, J. - (1.) This is an application under section 439 (II) of the Cr. P.C. for cancellation of bail of accused Krishna Kumar Pandey.
(2.) It was argued on behalf of the applicant/ complainant and only point which has been pressed, was that the learned Sessions Judge, who had enlarged the accused on bail has not been considered facts he himself had rejected, the bail application of co-accused against whom only allegation of conspiracy punishable under section 120B of the I.P.C. was made. A long criminal history of 24 cases pending against the accused has been given. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the accused-opposite party No. 2 is a hardened criminal and in case he remains on bail there is every likelihood and danger of safety and security of the witnesses.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that no overt-act which might have been committed by the opposite party No. 2 after granted of bail has been mentioned and bail should not be cancelled merely on mechanical grounds if there are no such allegation.;