IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 30th day of August, 2011 1st Bail Application No.502 of 2011 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Akhil Agarwal S/o Sushil Kumar Kante, R/o Mohalla Khatriyan, P.S.- Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party Arising out of F.I.R. No.577 of 2010, Under Sections 302/120B/34/201/364A of I.P.C. Police Station- Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. R.S.Sammal, Advocate and Mr. Prem Kaushal, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Harsh Pal Sekhon, Advocate, present for the complainant. Heard. Applicant Akhil Agarwal, who is in jail in connection with Crime/F.I.R. No. 577 of 2010, relating to offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34, 201, 364-A I.P.C., Police Station- Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail. Earlier applicant Akhil Agarwal appears to have been granted bail, after hearing the parties, by learned 2 Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in the same case vide order-dated 22.02.2011. Subsequent thereto, a bail cancellation application appears to have been moved by the complainant before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 33 of 2011. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (successor of Sessions Judge, who granted bail) vide its order dated 24.05.2011 cancelled the bail, and applicant has again been taken into custody. Before that application for cancellation of bail was moved before this Court in which it was observed that such application can be moved before Sessions Judge. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had only one son Sachin Agarwal, aged 32 years, who was a businessman. He was said to have been abducted on 24.11.2010, by unknown persons, who on that day at about 6:00 p.m. rang to the complainant and demanded ransom of `2 crores. The complainant informed about the incident to the present applicant Akhil Agarwal, who was a closest friend of Sachin, (the person abducted). Efforts for search of the abducted one was made on that day, whereafter, the F.I.R. was registered at Police Station- Kashipur. It is alleged by the prosecution that from the next day Akhil Agarwal, who was earlier searching an abducted person with the complainant, started advising the complainant that he should negotiate with the callers to save the life of his son. This made complainant suspicious about the present applicant. On 26.11.2010, Sachin was said to have been killed and his body was found within the territorial limits of Police Station-Mudapandey, District- 3 Moradabad. During investigation, according to the prosecution, applicant was said to be in touch with his mobile phone with the abductors, namely, Javed and Vimal. Learned counsel for the applicant pleaded that since the said persons (accused Javed and Vimal) were also residents of Kashipur and known to the applicant and the complainant, there was nothing unusual, if from the mobile phone of the complainant, he had a talk with his wife or the abductors. It is further contended that there was no motive on the part of the applicant to get the son of the complainant abducted, who was his closest friend. It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that once in the above facts, the then learned Sessions Judge, found it a fit case for bail, the successor Sessions Judge, has committed error of law in canceling the bail by reappreciating the same facts. In reply to this, Sri Harsh Pal Sekhon, Advocate, present on behalf of the complainant pleaded that after Akhil Agarwal, was released on bail, he threatened the complainant of dire consequences and First Information Report was lodged relating to said threat, as such the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, has committed no error of law in canceling the bail. In the above circumstances, this Court has to see whether there was sufficient justification for canceling the bail application by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, or not. It is a settled principle of law that once an accused is granted bail, the bail can be canceled only on limited grounds for like misrepresentation of facts made by the 4 applicant in seeking bail, abuse of the bail after it was granted to him, or new material against the applicant so serious that it would have led the Court to reject the bail application, etc. It is not a case where prosecution alleges that the applicant misrepresented or misled the Court, nor is it a case where new material has been collected against the applicant, as the bail when granted, the charge sheet had already been filed. The only point that prosecution says is that complainant was threatened by the applicant after he was released on bail. In reply to this, learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court to the statement of PW-1 Rakesh Gupta (complainant) who has been examined and cross-examined before the trial court, and on its basis, it is pleaded that there was no more threat to the complainant, nor the interest of the prosecution gets prejudiced. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Akhil Agarwal, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and his furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. (Urgency application No. 3246 of 2011, stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 30.08.2011 JM