GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order governs the disposal of bail cancellation application filed under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Petitioner Gajendra Singh Rajput seeking cancellation of bail of the Respondent No. 2, Ranjeet Singh @ Radhey Shyam Daroga, who has been granted bail vide order dated 14th September, 2009 rendered by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the accused-Respondent No. 2 as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail on the ground that the learned trial Court granted bail to the accused Respondent No. 2 on irrelevant consideration. Learned Counsel contended that 28 criminal cases of alike nature under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, have been pending against the accused Respondent No. 2, out of which most of the cases are still pending. He has also been declared history-sheeter by two police stations. Learned Counsel further contended that the accused Respondent No. 2 has enticed many people and amassed a lot of wealth by unfair means amounting to Rs. 1 crore. Neither he is contractor nor submitted the tender. He once gave a false affidavit that he was not a hi story-sheeter, whereas in contra to it, he filed a petition to get the history-sheet quashed. In the case of an accused Respondent, who has been cheating public at large, bail must not have been granted to him by the Court. In contra, he deserves to be prosecuted under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure for furnishing a false affidavit. There is every likelihood that the accused Respondent No. 2. may tamper with the witnesses during trial. Only 10 days back he has threatened the complainant, hence, the bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 deserves to be cancelled. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2009 14 SCC 286; Suresh Kumar Somabhai Rana v. Ashok Kumar Haraklal Mittal and Ors., 2009 14 SCC 292; Kumari Suman Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2007 12 SCC 364; and Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat, 2008 5 SCC 66.