Shaheed Khan vs Jaleel Khan

G. S. Solanki, J.—Both these applications are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of common crime number. Applicant Shaheed Khan has preferred these applications u/s 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondents Jaleel Khan, Bablu Khan, Sageer Khan and Majjnu @ Mohd. Siddiqui Khan @ Babu (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondents'') by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa vide order dated 29.6.2011 passed in Bail Application No. 907/2011 and order dated 30.6.2011 passed in Bail Application No. 904/2011.

It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that bail application of one of co-accused Mohd. Ahmad @ Tiwari has been rejected by this Court vide order (P-4) dated 16.12.2009 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9161/2009. The trial Court has wrongly granted bail to the respondents on the basis of parity of order of bail passed in favour of co-accused Hafeez Khan and Mohd. Yunus. The respondents have tampered with the evidence and threatened the applicant by uttering abusive words, therefore, the applicant filed complaints (P-5 and P-6) in this regard to the Superintendent of Police and SHO, Gudh.

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Court below has failed to consider the fact that the respondents could have repeated such offence or abscond or may create obstacle in the trial, therefore, the bail granted to the respondents be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the respondents and State have opposed the application and submitted that bail can be cancelled only on the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on re-appreciation of the facts of the case.

I have perused the FIR and impugned orders along with order dated 19.5.2011 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4047/2011, by which this Court granted bail to Hafeez Khan and Mohd. Yunus. On persual of First Information Report, it reveals that deceased was assaulted by the respondents along with co-accused Hafeez Khan and Mohd. Yunus by feasts, kicks and danda, but there is no specific allegation that who assaulted the deceased by danda. In these circumstances, learned Court below released the respondents on the basis of parity with Hafeez Khan and Mohd. Yunus.

It is well established principle of law that different considerations have to be weighed while dealing with the applications for cancellation of bail and for grant of bail respectively. In Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, , the Apex Court observed that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Similar is the view taken by the Apex Court in Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P. - 2004 (13) SCC 617.

In the instant case, in my opinion, the Court below rightly granted bail to the respondents on the basis of parity with Hafeez Khan and Mohd. Yunus. The applicant only alleged against the respondents that they abused him and threatened him, however, no crime was registered against the respondents on the basis of aforesaid complaint of the applicant. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any supervening circumstances, in which the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Court below and to cancel the bail granted to the respondents. The applications being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.