Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17810 of 2008 Petitioner :- Mohd. Yakub Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Kameshwar Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.
The present application has been filed for cancellation of the bail
granted on 13.3.2008 by the then Additional Sessions Judge Ist,
Muzaffarnagar in Case Crime No. 2335 C of 2007 under section
420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar,
District Muzaffarnagar. The learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that two daughters of the applicant were married with
O.P.No.2 and 3. Subsequently, there was torture since demand of
dowry could not fulfilled, hence daughters of the applicant started
living at parental house. The application was moved under Section
125 Cr.P.C., A forged Nikahnama was filed by O.P.No.2 showing
the Nikah of Shabnum with the allegation that she has remarried.
The affidavit was filed before Additional Sessions Judge in the
bail application. A forged certificate was also filed to the effect
that accused-O.P.No.2 Shahid was suffering from T.B. disease and
was aged about 20 years, though he was not suffering from T.B.
disease and his date of birth is 01.1.1972, according to High
School certificate. After released on bail, there was threatening for
compromise, hence on the aforesaid ground bail granted to
O.P.No.2 and 3 be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and 3 submitted that it is
incorrect to say that O.P.No.2 was not suffering from T.B. disease.
As far as age is concerned it is correct that he is about 33 years of
age today and it was due to typing mistake 20 years of age was
mentioned in the application. However, the application for bail
was not allowed on that ground by learned Sessions Judge. He also
submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted and matter
is pending.
In view of the facts and circumstances since Additional Sessions
Judge was satisfied that it was case of bail, and order was passed
on 13.3.2008, hence at this stage, after a long gap no interference
is required. There was no overt act on behalf of O.P.No.2 and 3,
though there is allegation of threatening. Hence, I am not inclined
to cancel the bail. According by the present application for
cancellation of bail is hereby rejected. If there is any misuse of
bail in future, applicant as well State will be free to file application
for cancellation of bail.
However, the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay and
unnecessary adjournment, preferably, within six months.
Order Date :- 5.7.2010
S.A.A.Rizvi