ORDER

1. Applicant has filed this application under section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail orders dated 23.2.2023 and 28.2.2023, contained in Annexure A/1 and A/2.

2. Respondent No.2 Dharmendra, respondent No.3 Harnarayan, respondent No.4 Asharam and respondent No. 5 Sunil @ Shailu had filed applications under section 439 of Cr.P.C. before trial Court. Said applications were allowed vide order dated 23.2.2023 and 28.2.2023 by trial Court. Trial Court in its orders mentioned that respondent No.2 Dharmendra is said to have assaulted Sonu Kushwaha from blunt side of an axe. Doctor has not mentioned in its report dated 08.02.2023 that injury was dangerous to life. However, in query, Doctor has mentioned that injury was dangerous to life and further advice was made to obtain X-ray report. Court held that Doctor has mentioned in its report that injury was dangerous to life without there being any X-ray on record. District Hospital at Tikamgarh has not given any opinion regarding nature of injury. In CT scan report done in private hospital at Jhansi mention is made of soft tissues on head. No allegation has been made that injury is grievous or dangerous to life. Respondent No.2 Dharmendra is working in Indian Army and was on leave. Considering totality of aforesaid circumstances, he was granted bail. Similarly, bail application of respondent No.3 to 5 was considered on grounds of parity. Said accused persons were released on bail on parity as they were holding lathi and have not used any sharp cutting weapon for causing injuries.

3. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the applicant that respondents are convicted offenders. Their sentence has been suspended by High Court and they were released on bail. After being released, they have committed present crime. In these circumstances, they had violated the conditions of bail order and they may not have been released on bail. Court below did not consider the objections as copies of bail order was not produced before Court in which condition has been imposed that they will not engage themselves in any other offence. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that Court had committed an error in allowing bail applications filed by respondents No. 2 to 5. Sentence of respondent No. 2 to 5 was suspended in Criminal Appeal No. 386/2007 vide order dated 25.7.2007 and they were released on bail. After being released on bail, respondent No.2 again committed an offence. It has wrongly been mentioned by trial Court that injury was not dangerous to life. Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence regarding injury suffered by victim. Injury was dangerous to life and offence is punishable upto life imprisonment. Therefore, trial Court ought to have rejected the application.

4. Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that respondent No. 2 Dharmendra is a government servant working in Indian Army therefore, he has falsely been implicated so that he may have its implication on his service record. Respondents No. 2 to 5 are innocent. There is no condition in the bail order that they will not commit any offence in future. In these circumstances, no interference is call for and application be dismissed.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. There is no allegation that respondent No.2 had breached the conditions of bail order. Prayer was made for cancellation of bail on grounds that Court has not appreciated the facts correctly and order was challenged on merits. Court cannot consider application for cancellation of bail as if Court is sitting as an appellate authority. Court has to consider supervening circumstances and may also consider fact regarding misrepresentation of facts by accused claiming bail or not placing correct facts before the Court. Court has considered the case on merits and has passed order granting bail to the accused persons. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court in granting bail to respondent No.2 Dharmendra in the