SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1985

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Yogendra Singh Rajput – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anand Sharma, for the Appellant; Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. These applications under Section 439(2) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondents under Section 439 CrPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.06, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, vide order dated 07.12.2020 & 11.12.2020 respectively, have been filed by the applicant.

2. Sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the first bail application of the accused-petitioners was dismissed by the learned Court vide its order dated 01.12.2020; but, they were extended benefit of bail while entertaining their second bail applications just six days and ten days respectively thereafter vide order dated 07.12.2020 & 11.12.2020 respectively. He submitted that in the interregnum there was no change in circumstance except lapse of few days. He, therefore, prayed for cancellation of bail extended to accused-petitioners vide order dated 07.12.2020 & 11.12.2020 respectively.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent submitted that the contention is wholly misconceived inasmuch as vide order dated 01.12.2020, the bail application of the accused-respondents was dismissed by the learned trial Court under Section 437 CrPC; whereas,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top