Shiv Shanker - (1.) THIS is the application moved for cancellation of bail has been moved for praying to cancel the bail of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 74 of 2005, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336, 324 and 308, I.P.C., P. S. Dhanapur, district Chandauli.
(2.) COUNTER - affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have already been exchanged. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have already been released on bail in the above noted case by this Court and concerned Sessions Judge. After releasing on bail, they have misused the liberty by extending threatening to the applicant and his witnesses. They were also beaten by them and they have been medically examined and their injury reports are available on record. The applicant tried to lodge the F.I.R. in the concerned police station but his report was not lodged. Thereafter, he has moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. upon which the report has been called for. It is further contended that there is criminal history against opposite parties No. 2 and 3 prior to the alleged incident. However, their bail application has been allowed by this Court. If the bail is not cancelled, prosecution witnesses will be unable to give evidence in the Court.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. submitted that there is no sufficient ground to cancel the bail granted earlier by both the courts. After registering the case, opposite party No. 2 Chandan Seth was enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.2.2007 in Crime No. 74 of 2005. Thereafter, opposite party No. 3 Smt. Nirmala Seth who is mother of opposite party No. 2 was also enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge on 28.2.2007. Therefore, it appears that after releasing on bail, the present applicant moved an application to the concerned S. P. regarding extending threatening and causing injuries which were started from 7.3.2007. Therefore, motive of present applicant only appears to send opposite parties No. 2 and 3 into jail. Injury report vide Annexure-9 reveals that abrasion and swelling were found on three persons. Therefore, these injuries are superficial injuries and the same got manufactured by the doctor. The case has not been registered on the basis of application moved under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. No cognizable or non-cognizable report has been lodged against opposite parties No. 2 and 3. The bail order has been passed by this Court on merit of the case. There is no criminal history against both of them after releasing on bail. Therefore, it appears that it has been moved only on false and filthy ground. In such circumstances, this is not the case wherein opposite parties have misused the liberty of bail.;