NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sections 439 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-4) and also for quashing of order dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the appeal for cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 was an accused in case FIR No.485 dated 13.10.2016 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Badshahpur, Gurugram, Distt. Gurugram. He filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, which was rejected vide order dated 16.12016 and, thereafter, he moved a petition before this Court bearing CRM-M No.2785 of 2017 which was also dismissed on 05.07.2017. Respondent No.2 was arrested and he filed an application for grant of regular bail, which was allowed vide order dated 008.2017 on the ground that no recovery was to be effected from him. Petitioner challenged that order of grant of bail to respondent No.2 on the ground that it was granted without assigning any sufficient reason, whereas, his appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.12017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. Thereafter, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 008.2017 and also for quashing of order dated 07.12017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, thereby appeal for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail was granted to accused respondent No.2 without assigning any sufficient reason. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed without taking into consideration the contents of the appeal. The judicial remand of respondent No.2 was demanded by the police but the same was rejected by the trial Court. It was clear that it was a case of fraud and forgery at the instance of respondent No.2. A forged and fabricated Jamabandi was prepared by respondent No.2 and recovery of 80,00,000/- was to be effected from him. But all these facts have not been taken into consideration and application for judicial remand was rejected. Learned counsel submits that on one side the Investigating Officer was demanding judicial remand for recovery of the amount, whereas on the other side it was mentioned that no recovery was effected. There was a collusion between the Investigating Officer and respondent No.2. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has misused the concession of regular bail as he threatened to withdraw all the cases which were filed by the petitioner against him. Said reason was the sufficient ground for cancellation of bail.