IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2011 Prem Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Pan Singh, R/o Village Chanakpur, P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………Applicant/Informant Versus 1- Sher Singh S/o Kallu Singh Singh, R/o Village Bhurpuri, P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2- State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Dehradun. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate, present for the applicant/complainant. Mr. Nandan Arya. A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. R.P.Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the respondent No. 1/accused. Heard. This is an application moved by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 Sher Singh by learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 11.01.2011, passed on bail application No. 1701 of 2010, where by the said respondent has been directed to be released on bail in connection with the F.I.R. No. 355 of 2010, relating to offences punishable under Section 302,201, 364, 120B of I.P.C. Police Station- Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2 It is a case of circumstantial evidence, in which there is no witness of commission of murder by the respondent. The allegation made by the complainant in the First Information Report is that the accused/respondent got called the deceased through some unknown persons and after taking to some unknown place committed his murder. It is further submitted that due to the enmity with regard to purchase of some trees “Popular” accused/respondents were harboring enmity with the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant pleaded that the trial court has erred in granting the bail to the applicant. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 pleaded that in a case of circumstantial evidence where there is no witness of commission of crime of murder, and as such the Sessions Judge has committed no error of law in granting the bail, particularly with reasons are well discussed in the impugned order. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that merely for the reason that the Sessions Judge has exercised discretion wrongly, the bail cannot be cancelled, it requires something more like the fact that by concealing the material fact, bail was got obtained, or that after granting bail the accused abused the same. In the present case there is no such situation or something similar to it. 3 Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the application for cancellation of bail is rejected. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 01.11.2011 JM