The appellant seeks to assail two orders of even date i.e., 23.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby the Bail Application
No 624 of 2019, filed by the respondent – Subhash Yadav, and Bail Application No.
During the course of interrogation, accused – Amit Chaubey disclosed that the respondent (Rajesh Vikram Singh) and his brother had sent the accused persons for committing the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad. No 168 of 2018 lodged by the wife of the applicant and also considering the criminal antecedent so the applicant, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. While on bail in that case, he was found involved in the murder of Ashfaque Ahmad, in the bail application of the respondent – Rajesh Vikram Singh, the High Court was apprised of the fact that there are 26 criminal cases registered against him, of course, in some of which, he has already been acquitted and in a few cases, he was on bail.
Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not; (iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/witnesses; (v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings; (vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence; 5 (vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice; (viii)Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail; (ix)
The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge; (x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-cheating-and-forgery-in-passport-case/
We are of the view that in the case in hand, several important factors ought to have been kept in mind by the learned High Court while considering the prayer of the respondents for their enlargement on regular bail. Suffice to take notice at this stage that earlier both the respondents have been found guilty in a case under Section 302 IPC and while on bail, they have been prima facie found involved in the instant case.
The appellant has also placed on record the copies of orders passed by the Trial Court on various dates after the release of private respondents on bail by the High Court.
Basant, there are no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail granted by the High Court. The Court must be wary of a plea for cancellation of bail order vs a plea challenging the order for grant of bail. So, the crux of the matter is that once bail is granted, the person aggrieved with such order can approach the competent court to quash the decision of grant of bail if there is any illegality in the order, or can apply for cancellation of bail if there is no illegality in the order but a question of misuse of bail by the accused.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/discrepancy-in-date-of-birth-courts-legal-analysis/
It may be true that an accused cannot be permitted to be languished in jail indefinitely but the Courts while considering the bail application need to wait for the appropriate stage where such a relief can be granted without any adverse impact on the prosecution case.
Case Title: ANSAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 725)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001168-001168 / 2023
