Atamjeet Singh Bhola v. State Of Punjab And ANR

 

  
 

 

       

 

   !" #$%$!&'((




             

!) *'

!&+,- )(.%$# (/(/0 10

 

  


      

  !"#
 $  

%


 
    &' (/(/0 10 (4) -5 ( )               *+' ,,!     *-./'0,,!  #for recalling the order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, whereby concession of regular bail has been granted to respondent No. 2 in a case arising out of FIR %(12'+3.'3'-    *34*3+*'3*41*42*4+*2( ('3&  *((5,(+43   "    %'"    ,   6  /

7&(0 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by this Court, it is apparent that while granting the concession of bail to Hemant Verma, respondent No. 2, this Court had observed that Rohit Kumar, co-accused has been granted the

CRM-M-49730-2024 -2concession of anticipatory bail, whereas Shekhar Kapoor has been granted the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the bail was obtained by respondent No. 2 from this Court fraudulently.

3.

In response to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that from a perusal of the submissions made by her, it is apparent that she had never argued that Rohit Kumar has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and Shekhar Kapoor has been granted the concession of regular bail. She further contends that even in her bail application filed before this Court, the respondent No. 2 had not made any such submissions and the said averment in para No.5 of the impugned order appears to be a typographical error. She further submits that in the present case, respondent No. 2 had remained in custody for more than ten months and challan had already been presented against him at the time of grant of concession of bail. Moreover, the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and he had already suffered a long custody. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complete record in the present case.

5.

From a perusal of record, it is apparent that the petitioner has not alleged anywhere in his petition that respondent No. 2 has ever misused the concession of bail or has tampered with the prosecution witnesses or there are chances of absconding from the process of justice. Even there is no allegation that respondent No. 2 has ever misused the concession of bail, which was granted to him vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024. I find sufficient force in the submissions made by Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the averment regarding grant of bail to Rohit Kumar and Shekhar Kapoor appears

CRM-M-49730-2024 -3to be a typographical error and the bail granted to respondent No. 2 can never be cancelled on such a ground.

6.

Thus, finding no merit, the present petition is dismissed.  4(/(/

7 5 ((  

  9

:   ;:%  

 ;:%