The court emphasized that bail should only be cancelled if the accused is found to be tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or misusing the liberty granted.

Virendra Singh, J.

Smt. Veena Verma, moved this application praying for cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No.2, Sanjay Chaudhari vide order dated 5.6. 2009 passed by Sri Suresh Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, Budaun and to reject his bail bonds in Case Crime No. 04/2009, under Sections 386, 511, 506, 509 I.P.C and 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A on behalf of respondent No.1, State of U.P.

3. It is contended on behalf of applicant that the applicant had lodged the First Information Report 0n 25.4.2009 at Case Crime No. 04/2009, under Sections 386, 511, 506, 509 I.P.C and 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun stating therein that the respondent/ accused working as Manager in Urban Co-operative Bank, Badaun fraudulently got signed some blank papers from the applicant in respect to loan advanced to her for construction and thereafter he started harassing her and her husband thereby threatening to commit their murder and further sending some obscene SMS to her from his mobile and commenting obscene comments on her. The accused started blackmailing her thereby threatening to make pubic the obscene recordings of her on his phone. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.8 lacs from her, failing which he will commit the murder of her and her husband and will make public SMS on his phone. The accused is notorious, influential and having dominanency in the locality and criminal antecedents against him. There remained on record the clinching evidence against the accused making him positively involved in committing the aforesaid crimes but ignoring the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge arbitrarily and wrongly granted the bail to the accused vide impugned order dated 5.6.2009. After release on bail, the accused is intimidating/influencing the witnesses of the case including the applicant thereby giving an open threat that whosoever shall depose against him, will be killed.

4. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid case crime No.04/2009 the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet on 30.12.2009 against the accused in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun for the offence under section 386, 511, 506, 509 and 376 I.P.C and Section 67 Information Technology Act. It is also contended that previously on 22.9.2008 too, the accused was found indulged with the applicant for the offence under sections 420,352, 506,354 and 294 I.P.C in case crime No.2062 of 2008 registered against him wherein for the offence under section 294 I.P.C, he was enlarged on bail with this condition that he had not to repeat such offence. On 8.7.2009 again a case is registered against the accused at case crime No.1517 of 2009. Again in another F.I.R dated 13.9.2009 too, the accused was found committing a major incident at case crime No. 267 of 2009. On 28.9.2009 too, the accused was again found involved in another criminal activities at case crime No. 2692 of 2009. Thus, the accused had misused the impugned bail order dated 5.6.2009 by his involvement in criminal activities in a routine manner notoriously and professionally in his criminal back ground.

5. Learned A.G.A on behalf of State of U.P. supported the case of the applicant thereby contending that the respondent No.2 is harassing, torturing and blackmailing the applicant by different ways for which the applicant had lodged three First Information Reports against the accused. The accused frequently used to call the applicant even in odd hours of night, threatening her for dire consequence and sending her indecent MMS and threatening to run her indecent video even on all crossing of District Badaun. After being released on bail, the accused has misused the liberty of bail and again indulged himself in committing similar type of offence regarding which the case crime No. 1517 of