BHARATSINH VIJAYSINH PARMAR Vs. SANJAYSINH ARVINDSINH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed for cancellation of regular bail initially granted to the respondent No.1-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 2 nd Fast Track Court, Surat dtd. 7/12/2010 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2280 of 2010. The ground for cancellation is filing of subsequent FIR, where it is alleged that the respondent had threatened the applicant who is a witness in the offence and therefore, separate application Criminal Misc. Application No. 5916 of 2017 is filed for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court however, the Sessions Court has not entertained such application.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia appearing for the applicant submitted that the Sessions Court has not taken into consideration a very vital aspect that the applicant himself is a witness in the offence against the respondent and that while the deposition of the applicant was in progress at that stage, the respondent has committed offence for which separate FIR is also filed. It is submitted that therefore by committing the offence for which FIR is registered, the respondent has committed breach of condition of bail and therefore, it is required to be cancelled.

(3.) As against this learned advocate appearing for the respondent-accused states that the dispute pertains to the property and there are already several allegations in connection with such disputes and therefore, the application is filed only to pressurize the respondent as an arm-twisting method. Learned advocate submitted that originally the respondent was granted anticipatory bail by a reasoned order and thereafter, upon expiry of period of 90 days, the Sessiosn Court had confirmed the regular bail to the respondent which was subject matter of challenge before this Court and this Court had cancelled the bail granted to the respondent. Learned advocate submitted that thereafter, the respondent was enlarged on regular bail by the Apex Court and thereafter, there is nothing reported against the applicant, still the present FIR has been registered only with a view to have adverse effect in an ongoing trial.