MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present application, the applicant has prayed for releasing the applicant in Case Crime No. 156 of 1995, S. T. No. 1555 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C., Police Station, Kanker Khera, district Meerut.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(3.) IT is not disputed rather is admitted case of both the parties that accused/applicant was earlier enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case. There is no case of any of the party that at any point of time the bail granted earlier to the accused/ applicant was cancelled either by the trial court or by the High Court. In such circumstances the rejection of fresh bail application by the learned lower court is unwarranted because neither the accused-applicant was supposed to move any bail application before the learned trial court nor the trial court was supposed to hear the bail application of the accused-applicant, due to the fact on record that the earlier bail granted to the accused was never cancelled. So the facts remain on record that the accused/applicant is on bail as was earlier ordered to be released on bail. So far as the question of arrest of the accused-applicant is concerned, since the accused-applicant remained absconded at the time of trial before the learned lower court, his arrest is justified due to forfeiting the bail bonds on breach of conditions of the bonds. Merely his arrest does not give him a right to move for fresh bail order to be passed for him. Had there been the case against the accused-applicant of cancellation of his bail or bail was cancelled, certainly the accused was entitled for moving the bail application afresh.