The discretionary jurisdiction of granting bail should not be exercised arbitrarily and in a whimsical and wanton manner. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances.

This application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant, a victim who sustained injuries in the occurrence, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 by an order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (in short Special Judge, S.C.S.T. Act), Allahabad in Case Crime No. 359 of 2012 under Sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Colonelganj, District- Allahabad.

1. The factual matrix as unfurled in the F.I.R. and also highlighted by the applicant is that on 16.7.2012 at about 12 o'clock (noon) the applicant was on way to Allahabad University from his house where he was prosecuting studies in M.A. Final along with his elder brother Animesh Singh on his bike. When the bikers arrived near Lala Chungi their bike was intercepted by the Respondent No. 2 and his aides named in the F.I.R. To begin with, they all started hurling abuses and thereafter, co-accused Umesh Singh caught hold of the applicant. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 whipped out pistol from his waist and fired shot at the applicant with intention to commit his murder out of animosity resulting from Students' Union Election rivalry. The gun shot fired by the Respondent No. 2 hit the applicant in his stomach and he fell down on the road. He was immediately removed to the hospital by his brother (the first informant) with the help of passers by. After firing, all the named assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence brandishing their respective weapons in the air. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 14.15 o'clock. The Respondent No. 2, it would appear, surrendered in the court of concerned Magistrate and moved his bail application in the court of Session Judge, Allahabad on 23.8.2012. The learned Sessions Judge, however, transferred the bail application on the same day to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. Xth (in short ASJ, Xth). The bail application lingered without orders in the said court up-to 23.11.2012 and it was thereafter that the said bail application was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. Vth (in short ASJ, Vth ) under the administrative order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge. The bail application again lingered in the court of ASJ 5th till it was transferred to the court Special Judge SC/ST Act vide transfer order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the learned In-charge Sessions Judge, Allahabad on the transfer application of the Respondent NO. 2, moved on 11.1.2013. The transferee court, however, disposed of the bail application on the same day when it received the record of the bail application i.e. on 18.1.2013 admitting the Respondent No. 2 to bail. It is the order granting bail to the respondent no 2 which is under challenge before this Court.

2. The quintessence of the arguments advanced across the bar by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent No. 2 is an inveterate hard core criminal having to his discredit long criminal antecedents. He attempted to commit murder of the applicant causing grievous fire arm injury on the vital part of the body of the injured during broad day light in a thickly populated area of Allahabad in presence of several persons including the eyewitnesses named in the F.I.R. On the basis of statements of the eyewitnesses and consequent upon the investigation of the case that followed, the respondent No. 2 was clearly nominated as the actual shooter. The motive behind the occurrence was the rivalry between the applicant and the Respondent No. 2 resulting from students' union election.

3. The main brunt of the arguments advanced by Learned counsel for the applicant is that the brother of the applicant, who is an eyewitnesses of the occurrence and also the first informant, had filed objection against the bail application of the Respondent No. 2 in the court of ASJ, Xt