# Satyendra & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4575 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mayank Kumar Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyendra-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49332
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Against cancellation of Bail -
Trial court observed that revisionists had
misused liberty of bail - St.ment of PW-3
was recorded on 05.07.2023 and on next
date 19.07.2023, he admitted he initially
testified
voluntarily
but
later
faced
pressure from accused - He St.d before
court that accused had asked him to
testify in their favour - Based on witness's
testimony,
trial
court
found
that
revisionists had tampered with evidence,
threatened witness to testify in their
favour, thereby violating bail conditions
imposed by court - Bail cannot be
cancelled
without
issuing
notice
or
affording opportunity of hearing - Trial
court acted hastily, relying solely on PW3's St.ment, ignoring legal provisions,
Supreme Court mandate - Impugned
order, unsustainable and set aside. (Para
8, 9, 11)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Satyendra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
349
complicity has been stated in the offence, in
F.I.R., statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
of the informant as well as in his sworn
testimony before the Court. Learned court
below has not mentioned any documentary
evidence in support of plea of separate
living of the parents-in-law of the deceased
from her and her husband during her
lifetime. Learned court while rejecting
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has
not duly tested the evidence of P.W.1 at
anvil of prima facie case envisaged for
summoning accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to face trial along with accused
person, who is already facing trial. The
impugned order suffers from legal error and
is not sustainable in the manner in which it
exists.

12. Consequently, the revision stands
allowed, impugned order dated 10.06.2022
passed by learned trial court is hereby set
aside and the matter is remitted back to trial
court to hear and decide application 30 kh
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the
informant for summoning other named
accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
afresh, in accordance with law after giving
opportunity of hearing to the applicant and
public
prosecutor
in
the
light
of
observations made in present criminal
revision.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 349
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4575 of 2023

Satyendra & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Against cancellation of Bail -
Trial court observed that revisionists had
misused liberty of bail - St.ment of PW-3
was recorded on 05.07.2023 and on next
date 19.07.2023, he admitted he initially
testified
voluntarily
but
later
faced
pressure from accused - He St.d before
court that accused had asked him to
testify in their favour - Based on witness's
testimony,
trial
court
found
that
revisionists had tampered with evidence,
threatened witness to testify in their
favour, thereby violating bail conditions
imposed by court - Bail cannot be
cancelled
without
issuing
notice
or
affording opportunity of hearing - Trial
court acted hastily, relying solely on PW3's St.ment, ignoring legal provisions,
Supreme Court mandate - Impugned
order, unsustainable and set aside. (Para
8, 9, 11)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji Vs St. of
Kerala AIR 2006 SC 100 (Para 6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mayank Kumar
Jain, J.)

Judgment

1. This criminal revision has been
preferred
against
the
order
dated
19.07.2023,
passed
by
the
learned
Additional and Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Kasganj in Session Trial No. 173 of 2022
(State Vs. Ram Niwas and another) relating
to crime number 0033 of 2022 under
section 302 IPC, P.S. Sahavar District
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kasganj. By the impugned order, the
learned trial court cancelled the bail and the
revisionists were sent to Jail.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that the they were granted bail by
this court vide its order dated 15.11.2022,
18.11.2022 and 29.11.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47180
of 2022, Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 22379 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.44615 of 2022. During the
trial, the revisionists did not misuse the
liberty of bail.

3. During the trial, two prosecution
witnesses were examined by prosecution
such as PW 1 Ranjeet Kumar and PW 2 Jai
Prakash. Both the witnesses were declared
hostile since they did not support the
version of the prosecution. Statement of
PW 3 Manoj was recorded on 05.07.2023.
He also did not support the prosecution
version and was thus declared as hostile.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists
further submitted that on 19.07.2023, when
the cross examination of PW 3 Manoj was
recorded he stated that he had given his
earlier statement according to his free will.
Later on, he stated that he was pressurized
by the accused namely Sunil, Ram Niwas
and Satendra. Further this witness, while
replying to the question asked by the
learned trial court, stated that accused Ram
Niwas, Satendra and Sunil threatened him
to testify properly. The learned trial court
suo motto proceeded to cancel the bail of
the
accused/
revisionists
while
no
application was moved by the prosecution
to cancel the bail earlier granted to the
revisionists. The revisionists did not temper
the evidence which is apparent by the
evidence of all the three witnesses
examined so far by the prosecution.

5. The learned counsel for the
revisionists argued that learned trial Court
was duty bound to afford an opportunity of
hearing or to issue a show cause notice to
them as to why their bail should not be
cancelled before proceeding to cancel the
bail. The learned trial court arbitrarily acted
and proceeded to cancel the bail granted to
the revisionist by this Court. He further
submitted that the learned trial Court did
not adhere the settled proposition of law
that an accused is to be heard necessarily
before his bail is cancelled. Thus the trial
court has violated the principle of natural
justice. The impugned order passed by the
learned trial court is perverse and against
the settled principles of law therefore it is
liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated
that as per the statement of PW-3 Manoj
Kumar, it was concluded by the learned
trial court that PW-3 Manoj Kumar has
deposed
under
the
pressure
of
the
revisionist since he was threatened by them
to testify properly. As a result of this, he did
not support the version of the prosecution
and turned hostile. However learned AGA
did not controvert the preposition of law
that an accused is to be afforded an
opportunity of being heard before his bail is
cancelled.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the
State. Perused the record.

8. The perusal of the record goes to
show that vide the impugned order the
learned
trial
Court
opined
that
the
revisionists has misused the liberty of bail.
The statement of PW-3 Manoj Kumar was
recorded on 05.07.2023. On the next date
i.e. on 19.07.2022, he stated that earlier he
gave his statement according to his free
10 All. Kamal Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
351
will. He was pressurized by the accused
persons. In reply to the question asked by the
learned trial court, he stated that he was asked by
the accused persons to testify properly.

9. On the basis of above testimony of the
witness the learned trial court opined that the
revisionist has tempered the evidence and has
threatened the witness to testify in their favour.
The accused/ revisionists has violated the
conditions of bail imposed by this court.

10. In P.K. Shaji alias Thammanam Shaji
Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 100, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

"6...It is equally true that the accused
who is on bail, should be heard before an order
of cancellation of bail is passed by the Court.
This Court in Gurdev Singh v. State of Bihar
[(2005) 13 SCC 286 : AIR 2000 SC 3556 (1) :
(2004) 4 Crimes 103] held that the accused must
be given notice and opportunity of hearing
before the bail granted to him is cancelled."

11. In view of above, it transpires that bail
cannot be cancelled without issuing notice to the
applicant and without affording them a reasonable
and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court
is patently wrong. The learned Court below while
passing the impugned order completely ignored
the provision of law and the mandate given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that learned
trial court acted in a hurried manner and merely on
the basis of the statement of PW-3 Manoj Kumar
concluded that the revisionist had influenced the
witness and had also coerced the witness to give
testimony in their favour.

12. It is also observed that vide the
impugned order the learned trial court sent the
revisionists to the judicial custody which was not
in accordance with the law given the facts and
circumstance of the case. If the trial court was of
the opinion that the revisionists had violated any
condition of the bail order passed by this Court or
they had coerced the witness, the trial court was
legally bound to serve a notice to the revisionists
to show them a cause as to why their bail should
not be cancelled. And after hearing the
revisionists, the trial court ought to have passed the
order according to the law.

13. Therefore, the order passed by the
learned trial court suffers with illegality and hence
not sustainable. As a result, the revision deserves
to be allowed.

Order

14. This criminal revision is allowed, and
the impugned order is set aside.

15. Learned trial court is directed to release
the revisionists forthwith against the same bail
bonds filed by them pursuant to bail orders passed
by this court.

16. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to
communicate this order to the court concerned
through the District Judge, Kasganj through email for immediate compliance.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 351
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5479 of 2022

Kamal Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vikrant Rana

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: