The prayer for cancellation was founded on the observations in the order of Mr. Justice Gupta which was verbatim quoted in the petition.
The appellant has number challenged the judgment before this Court.
The appellant, thereafter, filed another petition before the High Court which was allowed by Mr. Justice B.C. Varma on 6 7 90 and the appellant was directed to be released on bail.
After the charge sheet was filed in the case the appellant along with two other accused persons renewed the prayer before the Sessions Judge who again rejected the same.
After his prayer for bail was rejected by the trial Court he filed an application before the High Court which was dismissed with the observation that he companyld renew the prayer after the submission of the report by the police on companypletion of investigation.
case where the State should apply for cancellation of bail of all the accused persons.
In view of this observation the State filed a petition for cancellation of the bail order passed by Mr. Justice B.C. Varma.
The appellant is an accused in a murder case.
The application was listed before Mr. Justice Gupta who by the impugned judgment cancelled the earlier order of Mr. Justice B.C. Varma and while so doing made strong remarks against grant of bail in cases like the present one.
Special leave is granted.
If the State was aggrieved by the order of bail by Mr. Justice B.C. Varma it companyld have approached this Court but, that was number done.
Another accused, Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, thereafter, approached the High Court for bail which was placed before Mr. Justice G.C. Gupta who made an order in his favour by his judgment dated 8 9 90 but, observed that the accused persons including the present appellant who had been earlier granted bail by the High Court did number deserve to be enlarged on bail, and that it was a fit.
In this application numberadditional fact was stated number any allegation against the appellant was made which companyld be relevant for the prayer of cancellation of earlier bail order.
