SUSHIL KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. This bail cancellation application has been filed by Sushil Kumar Dixit. informant of Crime No. C-2 of 2006, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506, I. P. C. , P. S. Raipurwa, District Kanpur Nagar seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents, namely, Chand Kumar Verma, Rajeev Kumar Verma and Sanjeev Kumar Verma.

(2.) THE allegations against the respondents accused through an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C were that they had cheated the informant to a tune of Rs. Nine lacs regarding which Crime No. 355 of 2003, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. was registered against them in District Lucknow and the trial was proceeding in the Court of C. J. M. , Lucknow. THE aforesaid accused persons were pressurizing the complainant not to give evidence in the, aforesaid case. Motivated by the aforesaid reason, on 26-1- 2006 near Jhakarkati Pull the father and the two sons surrounded the informant Shushil Kumar Dixit, at 7. 00 p. m. and threatened him to withdraw the case. On the refusal by the informant to scummed their request the two sons assaulted the complainant whereas the father shot at him. THE informant applicant Sushil Kumar Dixit got himself medically examined and his medical report indicate that he has sustained two contusions and a complaint of pain and superficial to deep burnt injury on ear pinna. Because the accused persons were involved in the earlier case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I. P. C. , therefore, their bail is sought to be cancelled in the latter crime, which was granted by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 26-8-2006 in bail application No. 2240 of 2006 on the ground of tampering with witnesses of the earlier case.

(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. on the other hand submitted that bail has been rightly granted to the accused persons because there was litigation between both the sides and both the parties had filed cases against each other and were in the look out to implicate their rival. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant were not commensurate with the prosecution version and therefore, also liberty of bail should not be cancelled and instead some condition should be imposed.