- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. This bail cancellation application has been filed by Sushil Kumar Dixit. informant of Crime No. C-2 of 2006, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506, I. P. C. , P. S. Raipurwa, District Kanpur Nagar seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents, namely, Chand Kumar Verma, Rajeev Kumar Verma and Sanjeev Kumar Verma.
(2.) THE allegations against the respondents accused through an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C were that they had cheated the informant to a tune of Rs. Nine lacs regarding which Crime No. 355 of 2003, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. was registered against them in District Lucknow and the trial was proceeding in the Court of C. J. M. , Lucknow. THE aforesaid accused persons were pressurizing the complainant not to give evidence in the, aforesaid case. Motivated by the aforesaid reason, on 26-1- 2006 near Jhakarkati Pull the father and the two sons surrounded the informant Shushil Kumar Dixit, at 7. 00 p. m. and threatened him to withdraw the case. On the refusal by the informant to scummed their request the two sons assaulted the complainant whereas the father shot at him. THE informant applicant Sushil Kumar Dixit got himself medically examined and his medical report indicate that he has sustained two contusions and a complaint of pain and superficial to deep burnt injury on ear pinna. Because the accused persons were involved in the earlier case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. , therefore, their bail is sought to be cancelled in the latter crime, which was granted by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 26-8-2006 in bail application No. 2240 of 2006 on the ground of tampering with witnesses of the earlier case. I have heard Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant in this bail cancellation application and the learned A. G. A. in opposition. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that bail has been wrongly granted to the accused because they were earlier granted bail which they had misused by tampering with the evidence of the earlier case by assaulting the informant of that case, the applicant, and therefore, they should not have been released on bail by the Sessions Judge who committed a mistake in granting bail to the accused respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the purpose of grant of bail is that the accused be present themselves for trial and bail can be cancelled if there is misused of the liberty of bail by tampering with evidence of the case. He, therefore, submitted that the bail of respondents accused the father and his two sons, be cancelled and they should be sent to jail as they have forfeited their right to remain on bail.
(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. on the other hand submitted that bail has been rightly granted to the accused persons because there was litigation between both the sides and both the parties had filed cases against each other and were in the look out to implicate their rival. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant were not commensurate with the prosecution version and therefore, also liberty of bail should not be cancelled and instead some condition should be imposed. I have considered the submissions by the rival sides. A perusal of the bail granting order of the respondents accused indicate that there was rivalry between the applicant and the accused persons and at least in four cases the present applicant Sushil Kumar Dixit is an accused which has been lodged by the respondents accused persons. These cases are detailed below : 1. Case Crime No. 669 of 2001, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B, I. P. C. , P. S. Cannaught Place, New Delhi. 2. Case Crime No. 876 of 2001, under Sections 406, 420, 471 and 120-B, I. P. C. , P. S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. 3. Case Crime No. 257 of 2003. under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 34, I. P. C. , P. S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. 4. Case Crime No. 554 of 2004, under Section 506, I. P. C. , P. S. Hazarat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.;