# Satish Sachan v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-12
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53 of 2021
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-sachan-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-49051
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Sections
437 (1) (ii) & 439 - Bail - Special power of
High Court regarding Bail to an accused
previously convicted - Section 437 (1) (ii)
provides that an accused shall not be so
released on bail if he had been previously
convicted of an offence punishable with
death,
imprisonment
for
life
or
imprisonment for seven years or more -
however, in view of Second Proviso
appended to sub-section (1) of Section
437, Courts are not absolutely barred
from granting bail to a person if he had
been previously convicted, if the Court is
satisfied that it is just and proper so to do
for any special reason - Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. confer special powers on High
Courts and Session Courts, & is a provision
of a special character whereas Section 437
contains a general provision regarding
grant of bail in non-bailable offences - a
special provision take precedence over
and override a general provision of law -
provision contained in Section 439 of the
Code will take precedence over Section
437 of the Code and the bar contained in
Section 437 (1) (ii) of the Code will not
limit the special powers of the High Court
under Section 439 of the Code (Para 11,
12 )

There is a dispute between the parties
regarding a piece of agricultural land as both
the applicant & informant claim rights in respect
of same piece of land - Informant lodged an
F.I.R. on 05.10.2020 at 20:36 hrs against
applicant, alleging that the applicant assaulted
them with sharp-edged weapons, resulting in
simple injuries - applicant lodged N.C.R. on
05.10.2020 at 23:38 hrs - accused/applicant
also suffered simple injuries in the incident -
applicant has a criminal history of six cases, in
five cases he has already been acquitted and
the appeal filed against the conviction in the
sixth case has been admitted and the order of
sentence has been suspended by this Court -
present case, prima facie appears to be a cross
case and it is yet to be ascertained as to who
was the aggressor - Bail Application Allowed
(Para 19)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1270
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2022 &
16.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53 of 2021

Satish Sachan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Agni Pal Singh,
Sri Lalit Singh Tomar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan

Criminal
Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Sections
437 (1) (ii) & 439 - Bail - Special power of
High Court regarding Bail to an accused
previously convicted - Section 437 (1) (ii)
provides that an accused shall not be so
released on bail if he had been previously
convicted of an offence punishable with
death,
imprisonment
for
life
or
imprisonment for seven years or more -
however, in view of Second Proviso
appended to sub-section (1) of Section
437, Courts are not absolutely barred
from granting bail to a person if he had
been previously convicted, if the Court is
satisfied that it is just and proper so to do
for any special reason - Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. confer special powers on High
Courts and Session Courts, & is a provision
of a special character whereas Section 437
contains a general provision regarding
grant of bail in non-bailable offences - a
special provision take precedence over
and override a general provision of law -
provision contained in Section 439 of the
Code will take precedence over Section
437 of the Code and the bar contained in
Section 437 (1) (ii) of the Code will not
limit the special powers of the High Court
under Section 439 of the Code (Para 11,
12 )

There is a dispute between the parties
regarding a piece of agricultural land as both
the applicant & informant claim rights in respect
of same piece of land - Informant lodged an
F.I.R. on 05.10.2020 at 20:36 hrs against
applicant, alleging that the applicant assaulted
them with sharp-edged weapons, resulting in
simple injuries - applicant lodged N.C.R. on
05.10.2020 at 23:38 hrs - accused/applicant
also suffered simple injuries in the incident -
applicant has a criminal history of six cases, in
five cases he has already been acquitted and
the appeal filed against the conviction in the
sixth case has been admitted and the order of
sentence has been suspended by this Court -
present case, prima facie appears to be a cross
case and it is yet to be ascertained as to who
was the aggressor - Bail Application Allowed
(Para 19)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40

2. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC
22

3. Emperor Vs H. L. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All
356

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Agni Pal Singh, the
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned
Additional
Government Advocate,
Sri
Meraj Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for
the informant and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been
filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 481 of 2020, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 324, 504,
506 IPC, Police Station Ghatampur, District
9 All. Satish Sachan Vs. State of U.P.
1271
Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the trial
in the Court below.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
on 05.10.2020 at 20:36 hours against the
applicant - Satish Sachan and three other
named accused persons (1) Uttam Tiwari
(2) Ravi Sachan and (3) Bauwa Sachan and
six unknown persons alleging that all the
accused persons had abused the informant's
father and uncle and the applicant had
assaulted the informant's uncle on the chest
with a Barchchi (a sharped edged weapon).
It is alleged that co-accused Uttam Tiwari
had assaulted on the head of the informant's
father with an axe. The medico legal
examination report of both the accused
persons mentions that both of them had
suffered only simple injuries.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application, it has been stated that
the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The incident took place
because of a dispute between the parties
regarding a piece of agricultural land. The
affidavit contains an undertaking that if the
applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty and will not tamper with
the evidence.

5. It has further been stated that the
applicant is a recorded tenure holder of
land bearing Gata No. 242 Kh and the
informant and some other persons of his
side were ploughing the applicant's field
and when the applicant resisted it, they
had beaten up the applicant and one Gore
Sachan. On the same day i.e. on
05.10.2020, the applicant had lodged a
Non Cognizable Report at 23:08 hours
against the informantRaja Singh, his
father Dinesh Singh and his uncle Sumant
Singh complaining about the aforesaid
incident. The medico legal examination
reports of the applicant and Gore Sachan
have been annexed with the affidavit,
which indicate that both of them had
suffered multiple injuries of simple
nature.

6. Although in the affidavit it has
been stated that the applicant has no
criminal history, but when it was pointed
out that this statement is wrong, a
supplementary affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the applicant, in which the
following
criminal
history
of
the
applicant has been stated: -

(i) Case Crime No. 173 of 2005
under Sections 302/34 IPC, in which the
applicant has been acquitted by means of
an order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the
Trial Court.

(ii) Case Crime No. 214 of 1995,
under Section 214/95, in which the
applicant has been acquitted by means of
an order dated 11.03.2008.

(iii) Case Crime No. 1562 of
2008under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, in
which the applicant has been acquitted by
means of an order dated 01.09.2008.

(iv)
The
applicant
has
been
convicted in the judgment dated 21-062007 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge / Fast Track Court No. 2, Kanpur
Nagar in Session Trial No. 1547, 1547A,
1546 and 1546 A of 1990 of offences
under Section 307/34, I.P.C. and 25 Arms
Act, for which he has been sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years and 3 years
respectively and he has challenged the
aforesaid judgment and order by filing
Criminal Appeal No. 5608 of 2007, which
has been admitted by this Court by means
of an order dated 14-09-2007 and the
execution of sentence has been suspended
by this Court.
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) Case Crime No. 84 of 2008 under
Sections 147, 148, 307/149 IPC, in which
the applicant has been acquitted by means
of a judgment and order dated 25.08.2009
passed by the trial court.

(vi) In case crime No. Nil/1996 under
Sections 41/411 I.P.C>, the applicant has
been acquitted by means of the judgment
and order dated 18-02-2020 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate Ghatampur in Case No.
620 of 2009.

Copies of the aforesaid orders have
been annexed with the supplementary
affidavit.

7. The applicant is languishing in jail
since
07.10.2020
whereas
co-accused
person Uttam Tiwari has been granted bail
by means of an order dated 01.02.2021
passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 48365 of 2020.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional
Government Advocate and Sri Meraj
Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the prayer for
grant
of
bail.
The
learned
counsel
appearing for the informant has submitted
thatthe
applicant
has
already
been
convicted and he is not entitled to be
granted bail in view of the specific
provision contained in Section 437 (1) (ii).
He has next submitted that the applicant
has not approached this Court with clean
hands
as
in
Paragraph No.
24
of
theaffidavit filed in support of the bail
application, it has been stated that the
applicant is neither a previous convict nor
does he have any criminal history.

9. Section 437 of Crimial Procedure
Code provides as follows: -

"437. When bail may be taken in case
of non-bailable offence.-- (1) When any
person accused of, or suspected of, the
commission of any non-bailable offence is
arrested or detained without warrant by an
officer in charge of a police station or
appears or is brought before a Court other
than the High Court or Court of Session,
he may be released on bail, but--

(i) such person shall not be so
released
if
there
appear
reasonable
grounds for believing that he has been
guilty of an offence punishable with death
or imprisonment for life;

(ii) such person shall not be so
released if such offence is a cognizable
offence and he had been previously
convicted of an offence punishable with
death,
imprisonment
for
life
or
imprisonment for seven years or more, or
he had been previously convicted on two or
more occasions of a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for three
years or more but not less than seven
years:

Provided that the Court may direct
that a person referred to in clause (i) or
clause
(ii) be released on bail if such
person is under the age of sixteen years or
is a woman or is sick or infirm:

Provided further that the Court may
also direct that a person referred to in
clause (ii) be released on bail if it is
satisfied that it is just and proper so to do
for any other special reason:

* * *

10. It becomes manifest on a bare
reading of Section 437, that this provision
does not apply to applications seeking bail
under Section 439 of the Code filed before
the High Court and it even does not apply
to the bail applications filed before the
Session Court.

11. Moreover, even the Courts to
which the provisions of Section 437 apply,
9 All. Satish Sachan Vs. State of U.P.
1273
are not absolutely barred from granting bail
to a person if he had been previously
convicted of an offence punishable with
death,
imprisonment
for
life
or
imprisonment for seven years or more, or
he had been previously convicted on two or
more occasions of a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for three
years or more but not less than seven years,
as the Second Proviso appended to subsection (1) of Section 437 provides that a
person referred to in clause (ii) may be
released on bail if the Court is satisfied that
it is just and proper so to do for any other
special reason.

12. The power of the High Court and
even the Court of session to grant bail are
''special powers' provided under Section
439 of the Code, which provides as
follows: -

"439. Special powers of High Court
or Court of Session regarding bail.-- (1) A
High Court or Court of Session may direct-
-

(a) that any person accused of an
offence and in custody be released on
bail, and if the offence is of the nature
specified in sub-section (3) of Section
437, may impose any condition which it
considers necessary for the purposes
mentioned in that sub-section;

(b) that any condition imposed by a
Magistrate when releasing any person on
bail be set aside or modified:

Provided that the High Court or the
Court of Session shall, before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an
offence which is triable exclusively by the
Court of Session or which, though not so
triable, is punishable with imprisonment
for life, give notice of the application for
bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, of
opinion that it is not practicable to give
such notice:"

* * *

13. Section 439 of the Code
contains a reference to Section 437
thereof only to the extent that if the
offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of Section 437, while granting
bail to the accused, the High Court or
Court of Session may impose any
condition which it considers necessary
for the purposes mentioned in that subsection. Section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure
Code
conferring
special
powers of High Courts and Session
Courts, is a provision of a special
character whereas Section 437 contains a
general provision regarding grant of bail
in non-bailable offences. It is a wellestablished rule of interpretation, that a
special provision will take precedence
over and override a general provision of
law. Therefore, the provision contained in
Section 439 of the Code will take
precedence over Section 437 of the Code
and the bar contained in Section 437 (1)
(ii) of the Code will not limit the special
powers of the High Court under Section
439 of the Code. I, therefore, reject the
submission of counsel for the respondent
based on Section 437 of the Code.

14. Now I come to the second
objection raised by the learned Counsel for
the informant that it has been falsely stated
in para 24 of the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application that the applicant has
no criminal history, which indicates that the
applicant has not come before this Court
with clean hands and the bail application is
liable to be rejected on this ground. In this
regard, it has to be noticed that the
applicant is languishing in jail since
07.10.2020 and the affidavit has been filed
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by one Beena Devi wife of Ravi Shankar,
who is a house-wife and who is the sisterin-law of the applicant and she has verified
the contents of para 24 of the affidavit to be
true
on
the
basis
of
her
personal
knowledge. Neither the applicant has
signed the affidavit nor has he provided any
false information regarding his criminal
history to the deponent of the affidavit.
Upon the applicant's criminal history being
pointed
out,
his
wife
has
filed
a
supplementary affidavit mentioning the
details of the facts regarding the cases in
which the applicant has been implicated
and in that supplementary affidavit, it has
specifically been averred that the applicant
is convicted and that the appeal against the
order of conviction has been admitted by
this Court and sentence passed against the
applicant has been suspended by means of
an order dated 14.09.2007 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 5608 of 2007.
Therefore, I do not find the second
objection of the learned Counsel for the
informant to be tenable.

15. The law regarding grant of bail
has been explained in numerous decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it will be
apt to refer to a few of those judgments.

16. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,
(2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it
has been laid down from the earliest times
that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his
trial by reasonable amount of bail. The
object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it is
required to ensure that an accused person
will stand his trial when called upon. The
courts owe more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed
to be innocent until duly tried and duly
found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was
appreciated that detention in custody
pending completion of trial could be a
cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessity demands that some unconvicted
persons should be held in custody pending
trial to secure their attendance at the trial
but in such cases, "necessity" is the
operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal
liberty enshrined in the Constitution that
any person should be punished in respect of
any matter, upon which, he has not been
convicted or that in any circumstances, he
should be deprived of his liberty upon only
the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of
prevention being the object of refusal of
bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that
any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be
improper for any court to refuse bail as a
mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for
it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted
person for the purpose of giving him a taste
of imprisonment as a lesson."

17.

In
the
case
ofDataram
Singhv.State of Uttar Pradesh,(2018) 3
SCC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to reiterate the law of bail in the
following words:--

"2.
A
fundamental
postulate
of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption
of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until
9 All. Satish Sachan Vs. State of U.P.
1275
found guilty. However, there are instances
in our criminal law where a reverse onus
has been placed on an accused with regard
to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other
offences. Yet another important facet of our
criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of
bail is the general rule and putting a
person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one
may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately,
some
of
these
basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of
with the result that more and more persons
are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

** *
5. The historical background of the
provision for bail has been elaborately and
lucidly explained in a recent decision
delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v.
Union of India[(2018) 11 SCC 1] going
back to the days of the Magna Carta. In
that
decision,
reference
was
made
toGurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
[(1980) 2 SCC 565] in which it is observed
that it was held way back inNagendra v.
King-Emperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476] that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
Reference
was
also
made
toEmperorv.Hutchinson[AIR 1931 All 356]
wherein it was observed that grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception. The
provision for bail is therefore age-old and
the liberal interpretation to the provision
for bail is almost a century old, going back
to colonial days."

18.

In
Emperor
v.
H.
L.
Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356, this Court
had held that an accused person who
enjoys freedom is in a much better
position to look after his case and to
properly defend himself than if he were
in custody. As a presumably innocent
person he is therefore entitled to freedom
and every opportunity to look after his
own case. A presumably innocent person
must have his freedom to enable him to
establish his innocence.

19.

Having
considered
the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the parties in light of the law
explained in the above referred judgments
and gone through the record, I find the
following factors to be relevant for
deciding the application for grant of bail
to the applicant: -

(i) The applicant claims himself to
be a recorded tenure holder of a certain
piece of land and the incident took place
because the informant and some other
persons of his side also claim rights in
respect of the same land;

(ii) The applicant had lodged a Non
Cognizable
Report
of
the
incident
promptly on the same day i.e. on
05.10.2020, at 23:08 hours against the
informantRaja Singh, his father Dinesh
Singh and his uncle Sumant Singh
complaining about the incident;

(iii) The medico legal examination
reports of the applicant and Gore Sachan
indicate that both of them had suffered
injuries in the incident;

(iv) The present case prima facie
appears to be a cross case and it is yet to
be ascertained as to who was the
aggressor;

(v) The F.I.R., alleges assaults made
by sharp edged weapons by the applicant as
by the co-accused Uttam Tiwari and the
assaults made by both of them are said to
have resulted in simple injuries to two
brothers, and the co-accused Uttam Tiwari
has already been granted bail by means of
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an order dated 01.02.2021 and the case set
up against the applicant is similar to that set
up against the co-accused Uttam Tiwari;

(vi) Although the applicant has a
criminal history of six cases, in five cases
he has already been acquitted and the
appeal filed by the applicant against the
conviction in the sixth case has been
admitted by this Court and the order of
sentence has been suspended by this Court;

(vii) The affidavit filed in support of
the bail application contains an undertaking
that if the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty and will not
tamper with the evidence and nothing has
been said in the counter affidavit so as to
raise a reasonable doubt against this
undertaking ;

(viii) As the applicant is claiming title
to the land which appears to be the root
cause of the incident, there appears to be no
reasonable probability of his absconding, in
case he is released on bail.

20. In light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observation on the merits of the case, the
instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant Satish Sachan
be released on bail in Case Crime No. 481
of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
452, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Ghatampur, District Kanpur Dehat on his
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court below, subject to the following
conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with
the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence
any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before
the trial court on the date fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.

22. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move an application before this
Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL
APPLICATION No. - 53 of 2021

Applicant :- Satish Sachan

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj
Kumar Dwivedi,Agni Pal Singh,Lalit Singh

Tomar

Counsel
for
Opposite
Party
:-
G.A.,Meraj Ahmad Khan

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Order on the Correction Application

The learned counsel for the applicant
is permitted to correct the prayer as well as
the memo of the bail application.

The correction application is allowed.

The
words
'Kanpur
Nagar'
be
substituted in place of words ' Kanpur
Dehat' in the second paragraph and twenty
first paragraph of the order dated 12-092022.

This order shall be treated as part of
the order dated 12-09-2022 and the earlier
order passed by the Court has been
corrected accordingly. A certified copy of
this order shall be issued along with the
copy of the order dated 12-09-2022.
----------
9 All. Shefali Kaul Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
(2022) 9 ILRA 1277
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Appl. No. 463 of
2021

Shefali Kaul ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Katyayini, Sri Pankaj Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Anuj Srivastava, Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim

Criminal
Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Section 439
(2) - Bail Cancellation - High Court power
to entertain an application for cancellation
of bail is not taken away merely because
of pendency of an application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. challenging an order passed by the
Sessions Judge holding that the bail
cancellation application ought to be filed
before the Magistrate (Para 9)

Bail order was passed keeping in view the fact
that the accused persons and the informant had
entered into a settlement as per which the
accused persons paid Rs. 40 lacs to the
informant, in part performance of the settlement
and they issued post dated cheques of the
balance amount to the informant - accused
persons categorically stated before court that
they would follow the terms of settlement - bail
cancellation application filed as the cheques
which had been given by the accused persons
were dishonored for the reason that payment
had been stopped by the drawer Held - accused
persons'
subsequent
conduct
in
issuing
instructions to their bank for stopping payment
of the cheques amounts to the accused persons
resiling from the conditions which formed the
basis of the bail order - subsequent conduct of
the opposite party in trying to go to Bahrain and
threatening the informant, is a clear violation of
the conditions incorporated in the bail order that
the accused persons will not go outside the
boundaries of the country and they will not
influence the witnesses - Accused respondents,
bail cancelled they were directed to surrender
before the Court concerned (para 15, 16, 18)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40

2. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation 2022 Scc OnLine SC 825

3. Emperor Vs H. L. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All
356

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Katyayni and Sri Pankaj
Shukla, the learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the
learned Additional Government Advocate,
Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, the learned
counsel for the accused - respondents and
perused the record.

2. The present application has been
filed seeking cancellation of the order dated
21.10.2020
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Mathura in Bail Application No. 2832 of
2020 whereby the accused ? respondent
nos. 2 to 7 have been granted bail in Case
Crime No.312 of 2020, under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, Police StationNauhjheel, District Mathura.

3. The aforesaid order states that the
accused persons were produced before the
Court from jail and they had given an
application stating that they had taken the
money in question from the applicant in the
year 2016; that they had entered into a
settlement / MOU with the informant; that