The court affirmed that bail may be cancelled if prior decisions overlook critical evidence regarding the accused's conduct, criminal history, and the potential risk posed to victims.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant of the Bail Cancellation Application, learned A.G.A. as also Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2- Rakesh Sharma s/o Chandrapal Sharma in opposition to the Bail Cancellation Application.

2. The instant Bail Cancellation Application at the instance of the applicant-Ashwani Kumar Agarwal has been filed seeking the cancellation of the bail of the opposite party No.2 namely Rakesh Sharma, who has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 01.11.2022 passed in Bail Application No.7355 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.636 of 2021, under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad.

3. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/ informant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 submits that the applicant is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is in a professional relationship with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 by assuring good returns induced the applicant in investing a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in a sand mining project. The amount was transferred into the bank account of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 despite earning a profit of rupees ten crores did not give the applicant a single penny. The applicant lodged an FIR on 19.09.2021 against the opposite party No.2 and one Mumtaz Bhutto who was an accomplice of opposite party No.2. The FIR was registered as Case Crime No.636 of 2021, under Sections 420 , 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Tronica City, Ghaziabad. The FIR was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9716 of 2021 ( Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others ) which writ petition was disposed of in terms of a judgment dated 25.01.2021 rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2021 ( Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others ) wherein following the judgment of the Apex Court in different cases guidelines had been framed relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less. Thereafter the opposite party No.2 is alleged to have got executed a forged and fabricated agreement between himself and the applicant showing a sale transaction of an agricultural land to the tune of Rs.2,94,68,000/-. The FSL examination of the signature of the applicant on the said alleged document have been found to be forged. Based on the FSL report offences under Sections 467 , 468, 471 and 120B IPC were added against the opposite party No.2. Thereafter the opposite party No.2 has been extending threat to the applicant which compelled the applicant to approach the Additional Director General of Police, Meerut Zone Meerut as also other authorities by moving representations. The opposite party No.2 thereafter applied for regular bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad which has been allowed by order dated 01.11.2022 cancellation of which has been sought by means of the present application.

4. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the cancellation has been sought on the following grounds:-

(1) The opposite party No.2 is a history sheeter, which is registered as history sheet no.44A in police records of District Bulandshahr and he is involved in more than 28 cases including heinous offences.

(2) Proceeding under Goonda Act and U.P. Gangster Act have also been initiated against the opposite party No.2.

(3) The opposite party No.2 i.e. Rakesh Sharma is a proclaimed offender.

(4) The opposite party No.2, Rakesh Sharma is also involved in various murder cases, although in one or two cases he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. In a murder case at Greater Noida, in which he is single accused, the murder was committed in the year 2010 and charges were framed in 2012, yet even after 15 ye