MOSMAT.CHINTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Opp. NO.2 (Dr. Arun Kumar Burnwal) was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.8.2007 after taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the Opp. Party No. 2 that the criminal case is an outcome of a civil dispute, which the parties fought out, but the Court, at the same time failed in taking into consideration that there had been allegation, constituting an offence under Section 3/4 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in that view of the matter, anticipatory bail was itself not maintainable and, hence anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is fit to be cancelled.

(2.) BEFORE coming to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I may just indicate about the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, upon which one can seek for cancellation of bail.

(3.) IN this respect, case of Delhi Administration vs. Sanjay Gandhi (AIR 1978 S.C. 961) also needs to be referred to where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : -