Rajesh Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 499 of 2023 Appellant :- Rajesh Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aradhana Chaturvedi,Ashish Raman Mishra Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. List revised. None appears on behalf of accused/ opposite party No. 2 in opposition. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The appellant/applicant, Rajesh Sonkar, has moved the present application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused/ opposite party No. 2, namely, Vishal Yadav @ Dharm Singh, who was granted bail vide order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the court below in Second Bail Application No. 800/2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 09/2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 379, 427, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Indira Nagar, Lucknow. I have also perused the bail order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the court below in Second Bail Application No. 800/2023. Learned A.G.A. also states that there appears no good ground averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail cancellation application for interference by this Court to cancel the bail order of the accused/ opposite party No. 2. This bail cancellation application moved on behalf of the injured is nothing but an abuse of process of law, whereas the complainant has not come forward for rejection of the bail application, which shows that the injured wants to blackmail the persons, who have already been granted bail by the court below after due consideration the entire evidence which shows the intention of the persons who have nothing to do with the alleged incident, even though the injuries were also not certified, thus this court does not find any justification to cancel the bail order granted by the court below. The court below has considered the entire evidence, the injury report as well as the averment made in the F.I.R. and the statement of all the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and granted bail to the accused persons opposite party No.2 . The counsel also did not able to demonstrate the court that any of the condition has been violated by the accused/opposite party No. 2, which has been imposed by the court below. I do not find any good ground in the affidavit filed in support of bail cancellation application to interfere in the case for cancellation of the bail order granted to the accused/ opposite party No. 2. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the present bail cancellation application is devoid of merit, and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the present bail cancellation application is rejected. Order Date :- 23.11.2023 Arvind High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench