SAVANI CARRYING PVT LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defacto complainant in Cr. No. 29 of 2014 seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the third respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 19088 of 2014 on 20.8.2014. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court stated supra, the third respondent/accused had executed bail bond. Now, the defacto complainant approached this Court for cancellation of the same on the ground of deception alleged to have been practised by the third respondent in obtaining anticipatory bail.

(2.) Petitioner contends that in the second anticipatory bail petition the third respondent has furnished incorrect Crl.O.P. No of his previous anticipatory bail petition. Thus, the petitioner, who had appeared as intervenor in the said petition could not file his intervening petition in the second anticipatory bail petition.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused drawn our attention to the phrase "This is the 2nd anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner" in the second anticipatory bail petition. He do admit that mistake had crept in in mentioning the No. of the previous Crl.O.P. Instead of Crl.O.P. No. 14451 of 2014, it was mistakenly mentioned as Crl.O.P. No. 1445 of 2014. However, the petitioner magnifies this mole a big mountain.