Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
1. Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the learned trial court has wrongly exercised its discretion while allowing the bail application of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. He further submits that the allegations levelled against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are grave and despite sufficient material available on record, the discretion has been exercised by the learned trial court while enlarging the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on bail. Learned Sr. Counsel vehemently submits that the learned trial court has committed an error while passing the order dated 03.03.2022. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 03.03.2022 may be quashed and set aside and the bail bonds of respondent Nos.2 to 4 may be forfeited.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, while opposing the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant, submits that the case of the applicant stands on the same footing to the co-accused Mohan Ram, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022. He further submits that as per the allegations levelled against respondent Nos.2 to 4, the offence does not travel beyond the allegations which have been levelled against co-accused Mohan Ram. Learned counsel submits that keeping in mind the fact that the co-accused Mohan Ram has been enlarged on bail by this Court, the learned trial court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction by passing the order in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. The undisputed fact is that the co-accused Mohan Ram has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 and a perusal of the documents on record shows that the allegations levelled against co-accused Mohan Ram are almost of similar nature to the allegations which have been levelled against respondent Nos.2 to 4. In the humble opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while granting bail to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
6. In view of the discussions made above, the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned trial court enlarging the respondent Nos.2 to 4 on bail warrants no interference by this Court. The bail cancellation application lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
