ARVIND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the bail granted to the petitioner on 22.10.2005 under Sec. 438 Crimial P.C. has been cancelled. The bail has been cancelled ostensibly on the ground that when the bail application was filed, it was not indicated on the file cover of the bail application that in fact, it was second bail application. Instead, the bail application indicated that it was a first bail application. Since, subsequently, it was discovered that the bail application in fact, was the second bail application, therefore, vide order dated 14.12.2005 the bail granted vide order dated 22.10.2005 has been cancelled. Hence, this petition before us.

(2.) Mr. Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that number of bail application had been moved by the petitioner and his family members which are dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Subsequently, the petitioner who happens to be residing in Pune asked his uncle to pursue the matter. The uncle concerned, did not brief the counsel properly and as per the bonafide mistake the bail application was moved without mentioning the fact that it was a second application for bail. Learned counsel has argued that the bail was granted to the petitioner after a thorough discussion on the merits of the case and after hearing the learned PR He has contended that according to the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh AIR 1978 SC 1095, the Apex Court has clearly held that there is no allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well established ground for refusal of bail. Therefore, in that particular case, the Honourable Supreme Court had set aside the cancellation of bail. Similarly, the relied on the case of Dolat Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SC 349.

(3.) Undoubtedly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had granted the bail after discussing the merits of the case and after hearing the learned PR The mistake made by the uncle for not briefing the counsel properly is a bonafide mistake, it would not warrant the cancellation of the bail. For, there is an evidence or allegation that the petitioner had interfered with the judicial proceedings or that he had tampered with the witnesses or the evidence of the case. Therefore, the well established grounds for cancellation of bail are not made out in the present case.