Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Parveen vs State Of U.P. & Others on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 48

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10011 of 2008

Petitioner :- Parveen
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- M.P.S. Chauhan
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P. Dixit, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.2 to 4 as well as learned A.G.A.
and also perused the material placed on record.

The applicant by way of filing the present application in terms of Section
439(2) Cr.P.C. has sought to cancel the bail granted to the opposite Parties
no.2 to 4 by this Court as well as Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.25646 of 2006 and Bail Application Nos.743 of 2007 and
74 of 2007 in Case Crime No.390 of 2005, under Sections 307,302 IPC P.S.
Delhigate, District Aligarh.

Submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant, the informant of the
aforesaid case that after the accused were released on bail in pursuance of the
orders dated 2.4.2007, 12.3.2007 and 17.4.2007 passed by this Court as well
as passed by the sessions Judge, Aligarh, the informant and independent
witnesses are being subjected to threats by the opposite parties no.2 to 4 and
their supporters and there is hardly any progress in the case which is being

Indisputably, the parameter, for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are
different. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an
order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. However, bail
once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused- opposite Parties No.2 to 4 to
retain their freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
Viewed in this perceptive in the absence of any supervening circumstances, it
will not be possible for this Court to cancel the bail of the opposite Parties
No.2 to 4 at this stage. Moreover since accused- opposite Parties No.2 to 4 are
on bail for considerable length of time, I do not think it appropriate to cancel
the bail. The prayer for cancelling the bail is declined and the application is
accordingly rejected. However, the trial court is directed to make an
endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without
unreasonable delay.

It is further provided that if the informant or any witness seeks protection for
appearance before the court during the trial, the same shall be provided by the
concerned police official.

Order Date :- 29.1.2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.154 seconds.