BRIJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -II, J. - (1.) HEARD Mrs. Manju Sree Robinson, who appears in person, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record available.
(2.) THE applicant has filed the present bail cancellation application for setting aside the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 331 of 2014 [Susil Joshua Robinson Vs. State of U.P.], arising out of case crime no. 433 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow, whereby opposite party no. 2 has been granted bail. To appreciate the issue in controversy it is necessary to go through the factual details in short.
(3.) THE applicant -informant has lodged a first information report on 26.10.2013 against opposite party no. 2, which was registered vide crime no. 433 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2 by making forged signature of the applicant wanted to grab the property of the applicant. The complainant has also filed a separate case under Section 498 -A and 494 I.P.C., which is pending before the court concerned. The opposite party no. 2 has filed Misc. Bench No. 10747 of 2013 [Sushil Joshua Robinson Vs. State of U.P. and others] before this Court for quashing of the first information report dated 26.10.2013. A Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2013 disposed of the writ petition. The order dated 16.12.2013 is reproduced as under: "Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, the same be kept on record. In para -2 of the supplementary affidavit, address of the petitioner has been mentioned. He has also annexed copy of the pass -port along with petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR in case crime No. 433 of 2013, under sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow. The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed. Hence, no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioner moves an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the petitioner and in the meantime release the petitioner on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioner in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2004 57 AllLR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009 4 SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 65 AllCriC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit, provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month. It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above when and if the petitioner applies for bail before him. For a period of three weeks from today or till the petitioner appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case crime. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear before the court concerned for the purpose of applying for bail within the time allowed, no further extension will be given. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or he fails to cooperate with the investigating officer during interrogation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. " ;