(1.) THE instant application has been moved for cancellation of bail granted by learned Sessions Judge, Hathras to Opp. party No. 2 Rohit Jakhetia on 15-12-2006 in Crime No. 446 of 2006 u/ss. 498a, 307 and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act P. S. Sikandra Rau District Hathras.
(2.) A writ petition was instituted in this court for quashing the FIR but the writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the Court to decide the bail application of o. P. No. 2 expeditiously in accordance of the direction of this Court in view of law laid down in the case of Amrawati. And in pur-suance of the order of this Court bail appli-cation was moved in the Court of Sessions judge, Hathras and this bail application was disposed by the Sessions Judge on 15-12-2006 and O. P. No. 2 was admitted to bail. It has been alleged in the application for cancellation of bail that when application for bail was moved on behalf of O. P. No. 2 an appearance was put up on behalf of the complainant before the Sessions Judge and three days time was prayed for preparation and to file reply/counter-affidavit but the Sessions Judge refused to grant time on the pretext that there is an order of this Court to decide the bail application in view of amrawati case. That the evidence collected by the I. O. during investigation was not considered by the Sessions Judge for the disposal of the bail application. Even the statement of the victim/injured was not considered and no inquiry at all was made about the statement of the victim injured by the sessions Judge and there is no reference at all regarding statement of the injured recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. That the victim was married about six months earlier with o. P. No. 2 and she sustained fire arm injury on her abdomen at the time when she was pregnant and injuries were caused when the victim was inside her house. Rather learned Sessions Judge in order to grant the bail to the O. P. No. 2 considered the statement allegedly recorded of the injured on 7-9-2006 by a police personnel of police Station Shree Niwas Puri Delhi. That the so called statement was recorded by the police personnel without any authority without obtaining certificate from the doctor that whether she was in a position to depose or not. That this statement was a manipulation of O. P. No. 2 and his relation. There was a direction of the police officer to send a message to SSP Hathras for taking cognizance in the matter but it was not complied with. That the injury report of the injured was also not considered by the Sessions judge and the fact is that due to the injuries the victim has become permanently handicapped and lower portion of body paralyzed. Bullet injury was caused in the spinal cord. Much has been alleged on behalf of the O. P. No. 2 regarding mental condition of Smt. Sachi but the statement of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gaur and Smt. Mani bhargava at Aligarh was not considered by the Sessions Judge. In this context copy of the statement of these two doctors have been filed. Smt. Sachi has 'specifically stated about the involvement of her in-laws also but for the reasons best known to the I. O charge sheet was submitted only against the husband O. P. No. 2. That the O. P. No. 2 is pressurizing the applicant and the victim to withdraw the complaint otherwise face consequences. That manipulation has been made in the medical evidence regarding the cause of injuries by the O. P. No. 2 and his relation. That there was no justification to grant bail to the O. P. No. 2 by learned sessions Judge on the pretext of Amrawati case. The seriousness of the case was not considered rather irrelevant and inadmissible evidence was considered by the Sessions Judge for granting the bail.
(3.) OPP. Party No. 2 filed objection against the application moved for cancellation of bail and it has been alleged in the affidavit that the statement of the victim was recorded by a police personnel of P. S. Shree Niwas Puri delhi on 7-9-2006 and this statement is admissible in evidence and she has stated about the cause of sustaining injuries. That all the relevant papers were filed before the sessions Judge at the time of the disposal of the bail application and the bail application was vehemently opposed by the counsel for the complainant. There was sufficient ground for granting the bail to the O. P. No. 2 and the learned Sessions Judge was justified in granting the bail. That the opp. party no. 2 spent a sum of Rs. four lac in treatment of Smt. Sachi and if O. P. No. 2 is involved in the offence then there was no reason for him to provide medical treatment and spend a huge amount of Rs. 4 lac. That there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the delay has not been explained. The allegations made in the F. I. R. are false. The fact is that the injured herself tried to commit suicide and sustained injuries in making attempt to commit suicide and the country made pistol used by the victim was seized by the I. O. In all medical certificate cause of sustaining injuries has been mentioned as self suffered and there is no reason to disbelieve this fact. That no treatment was provided by the complainant in spite of the fact that he remain present at Delhi. That the application for cancellation of bail is liable to be rejected.