The rejection of an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. does not automatically disqualify an accused from being granted pre-arrest bail.

Order

11/01/2023 The present bail cancellation application has been filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The accused-respondent No.2 has been arrested in connection with FIR No.25/2017 registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar for the offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and later on for offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in extending the accused- respondent No.2 benefit of pre-arrest bail despite rejection of his application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus District Shrimadhopur vide order dated 24.03.2021. He, therefore, prays that the bail cancellation application be allowed, the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shrimadhopur be quashed and set aside and the benefit of pre-

arrest bail of the accused-respondent No.2 be cancelled.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused-

respondent No.2 has never misused his liberty of bail.

Learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 would submit that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.08.2021 is based on relevant considerations and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

Heard. Considered.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while extending the accused-respondent No.2 benefit of pre-arrest bail, has taken into consideration the relevant aspects such as that Investigating Agency after carrying out thorough investigation, submitted negative final report finding the dispute of civil nature and while taking cognizance, he was summoned through arrest warrant. Relying upon a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (3) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 1124, application filed by the respondent under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was allowed. It is trite law that parameters for grant of bail and its cancellation rest on different pedestal and the benefit of bail once granted by the competent Court should not be cancelled unless it is granted without taking into consideration the relevant criteria or is based on irrelevant consideration which is not the situation obtaining in the present case. The bail was granted to the petitioner way back on 24.08.2021 and there is no allegation of misusing the liberty.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after rejection of his application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. by the learned Addtional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused- respondent No.2 was not entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail, is without any substance and cannot be countenanced.

Resultantly, this application seeking cancellation of bail is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/01