ONKAR GULATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused persons and their friends and other relations on the said date belaboured Shri Onkar Gulati, and a report as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court had been ordered to be registered in connection with the said incident. The learned Counsel on the basis of the said incident wants this Court to cancel the bail of the petitioner. Admittedly the said incident is alleged to have taken place on February 15, 1997. The bail to Brij Mohan accused was granted by learned predecessor of this Court on July 15, 1997. The learned Judge while granting the said bail took into consideration each and every point and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that the present case was a fit case for grant of bail in as much as the role assigned to Shri Brij Mohan accessed was that of exhortation only. He did not take any part in the commission of the crime. It was this factor which weighed with the Court while granting the bail. I thus feel that the petitioner cannot press into service the said incident for cancellation of bail.

(2.) The other incident which the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Suman Kapoor has tried to take advantage of is alleged to have taken place on August 5, 1997. According to him, the accused Brij Mohan threatened the petitioner on telephone to withdraw the application for cancellation of bail failing which he will have to bear dire consequences. The petitioner in connection therewith has filed an affidavit dated August 21, 1997. However, there is nothing in the affidavit to show as to how the petitioner identified that it was accused Brij Mohan who was threatening him with death. It was not stated by him that he identified the accused Brij Mohan on the basis of his voice which he was familiar with.

(3.) Admittedly bail in the instant case was granted to Shri Brij Mohan accused on July 15, 1997. The application for cancellation was moved on July 29, 1997. Till then the accused persons had done nothing to incur the displeasure of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any thing on record that during the said period i.e. in between July 15, 1997 and July 29, 1997 the accused persons did anything which would warrant the cancellation of bail at the hands of this Court. It thus appears to me that the petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated July 15, 1997 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court granting bail to the accused Brij Mohan. He thus wants cancellation of the same not by moving an application directly for review of the said order. However, he is trying to do the same thing a bit obliquely by moving the present petition for cancellation of bail.