ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant application has been preferred under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No.2, namely Suresh son of Shri Kishore under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13771/2022 vide its impugned order dated 13.09.2022, in F.I.R. No.109/2022 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar District Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 302 and 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner that as per F.I.R., the accused-respondent No.2 had an active role in the murder of deceased-Vishal. It is also submitted that the deceased-Vishal had sustained six-injuries on his body, out of which two injuries were on the head of deceased caused by Mahendra and rest of the injuries were caused by other accused-persons. It is contended that the act of accused-respondent No.2 is serious in nature as he is regularly harassing the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the present application be allowed and the liberty of bail, so granted to the accused-respondent No.2 by this Court be cancelled and he may be ordered to be sent behind the bars.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has strongly opposed the bail cancellation application.

4. Heard. Perused the material made available on record.

5. In Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Others., 2020 Cr.L.R. S.C. 472, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"6. In the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2019) decided on 5th December, 2019, a coordinate Bench of this Court has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court in setting aside an order of granting bail. The two key factors for interfering with such an order are non-application of mind on the part of the Court granting bail or the opinion of the Court in granting bail is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. In the case of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2012) 2 SCC 382], a two Judge Bench of this Court declined to interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail to an accused having considered the factual features of that case."

6. Undisputedly, the bail application of the accused-respondent No.2 Suresh was granted by this Court vide its order dated 13.09.2022. As per aforesaid order, the petitioner/applicant-Suresh was behind the bars since 14.03.2022 and the deceased died due to head injury which was not caused by the accused-respondent No.2. Other co-accused- persons, namely Prahlad Kumar Balai, Lakhan, Lalchand and Ashok have already been enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by this Court vide its order dated 02.09.2022. In the aforesaid order, as per F.I.R., while running Vishal fell onto the road and then Mahendra hit him on the head with fry-pan for 4-5 times. As per post-mortem-report of Vishal, the cause of death was ante-mortem head injuries No.1 & 2.

7. Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner and having regard to the facts & circumstances of this case, there has been no irregular or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the Court in granting bail to the accused-respondent No.2. The material available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne ou