^.\ '^ ^ Tw^ '^?31lt^T^^W WWWWIT^® 'S^S -^WW^, ®Tl)'M<|(o,f®l<rll-H'4,< ^....C%:.M.^......^...............^^2QQ^ ^T^T '^T?^ (^t^®!^) ^€i?W^teT3?1T^| APPLICANT: NON-APPLICANTS: 1.1 2.1 Sinale Bench: Hon'b c?ii^?.<n4li ^TFI^ff ^ fe^ ^f^R '^'^w^n^r Hardik Kakkad, S/o Shri Hamana Das Kakkad.aged about 31 years, R/o Near Gujarati Samaj, Tikrapara, Bilaspur (CG) t/ereus- State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur A.E. Damerum, S/o Shri C.A. Damerum, 63 years, R/o Krishan Vjhar Apartment, P.S. Tarbahar, Tahsi! and District Bilaspur (CG) le Shri Dhirendra Mishra. *1. 27-8-2009:- Shri P.S. Koshy with Shri P^rag Kotecha, eounsel forthe applicant. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Pjanel Lawyer for tfie State/non-applicant No:1. Shri Manindra Shrivasfcsiva|, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ajay Ayachi, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. Heard. The applicant has preferrec( this application under SecUon 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for cancell^tion of bail of non-appljcant No.2 granted by learned Additional Sessions Juflge, Bilaspur, vide order of Annexure-A/1 dated 16-12-2008. The appticant's grievance is that he filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judidal Magistrate ^gainst non-applicant No.2 for reglsfration of offence under Sections 420, 46-ft, 466, 467,468 and 471 of the IPC. The ^l^^ ^t^ ^uil^^ <M-<kllM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. 1 F^: ^F^T?'?, ^^li^4J'?/fa^{'UHT :^^. '^ t^rc;; ^^1 -^n ^qNr J »l1^^11i.%NI.<^ WI 200 I^H^^B^'^^^ -^ '^Fif^pfrT 'RTO^ff ^ ft^t Tf^^H ^T -sifm a'n^t complainant filed an applicat fowarding the complaint to tl however, the same was reje^ted. The revision filed against ttie orcter of rejection of application under^ District and Sessions Judgq Cr.P.C. preferred by non-app| moved an application on 15-1 the police stetion against him. the concerned police station fon under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for bie concerned Police Station for investigation, Section 156 (3) was allowed by the leamed and application under Section 482 of the icant No.2 was further dismlssed by the High Court. Accordingly, the polic^ took cognizance under Section 156 (3) and registered the offence agairjst non-applteant No.2. Non-applicant No.2 ?-2008 and produced himselfto the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate ^nd said that the offence has been registered in On the subsequent day, he was produced by and he applied for regular bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected ttjie bail application, however, learned Sessions Judge allowed the bail applioation of non-applicant No.2 and released him on bail vide impugned order. The only grievance ofthe applicant is that non-applicant No.2 moved an application for grant of regular bail before the Sessions Judge though he was not taken into custody even before his bail application was re|ected by the CJM. It was further argued that the ground agiteted by non-applicant No.2 for grant of bail and accepted by the Sessions Judge is not a ground for grant of regular bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 submitted that the whole prosecution of non-applicant No.2 at the instance of the present applicant js actuated by malice. Learned Sessions Judge after considering overall grounds taken by non-applicant, released him on bail, .^^ ~^ -;ff^^ 'S^t ^iww^, ^-^w\<o, f®i<ni-y^< •Hw^iw<n^s '"^ 200 -^n^i^^^.(^f^^f) 3?i^T'^i R^i^ TTO^H^isCTt^ t^^S^^s Barve I^TW^^I ^riii which is just and proper. There is n order of rejection ofCJM aswell as ^TRfe^ "RTOff ^ fe^ Tf^K ^^ffiw^n^r \> ground availabte under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. in the instant case forlcancellation of baSt. Having heard leamed coun^el for the parties, having perused the |impugned order, I am ofthe opinion that no ground as envisaged under Secp:ion 439 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C. for canceling bail granted to non-applicant No.2|exists. Aecordingly, the applteation is rejected. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^l^-1! ^W ^"ll^^l <l"i-lkllM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000.