STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-State of Haryana has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2005 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-State and the complainant submit that the respondent after the grant of concession of bail has misused the same. A reference has been made to the various FIRs registered against the respondent i.e. case FIR No. 62 dated 22.2.2005 (Annexure P-3) registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar for the offence under Section 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short); FIR No. 36 dated 14.2.2005 (Annexure P-4) registered at Police Station Agroha for the offences under Sections 385/506/34 IPC and FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) registered at Police Station, City Hisar for the offences under Sections 148/149/506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. A particular reference is made to Case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) to contend that the respondent has misused the concession of bail granted to him.

(3.) IT would, however, be appropriate to note that it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State as also for the complainant that the concession of bail has been granted to the respondent in the FIRs that have been registered against him after the grant of the concession of bail in the present case. A reading of case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) would show that it relates to an occurrence of 9.2.2005 i.e. two days after the bail was granted by this Court to the respondent on 7.2.2005. However, the FIR has been registered on 24.2.2005. In the said case, the respondent has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure R-4). In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the respondent has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 103 dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure P-5) and even otherwise, there is nothing to show that the petitioner has misused the concession bail granted to him in the present case, I am of the view that no ground is made out for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.