MP High Court: If a criminal case is filed again after Bell, then it is appropriate to cancel the bell

New Duniya Representative, Jabalpur. A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of Madhya Pradesh High Court has declared the decision of the subordinate court correct in which the bail was canceled in view of the criminal case filed after the bail earlier.

The High Court said that after getting bail against the applicant, two criminal cases have been registered, which is a violation of bail conditions. The single bench canceled the petition, saying that the District Court has not made any mistake in its order.

Get false criminal case filed

The application filed by Mahesh Saket, the sarpanch of village Tikuri, a resident of Rewa, said that he is a sarpanch. Due to this, many people have political rivalry with him. False criminal cases have been filed against him.

This has been done to cancel the bail found in a criminal case recorded earlier. Anaveedak Mahendra Singh had no connection with the previously recorded criminal case. After getting bail, a case was lodged against him at the police station under the conspiracy.

Case registered for attempt to murder

SHO Vikas Kapis has filed a case of attempt to murder against him. The SHO also wrote to the officials concerned to remove him from the post of sarpanch. After this, the Annavendak had applied to cancel the bail found in the criminal case lodged earlier.

Restore service within three months

A single bench of Justice Vishal Mishra of the High Court directed to restore the petitioner personnel. However, the court said that since there was no interim order in this case, restore it without backways. The court said that the petitioner should issue a fresh order within three months, giving the opportunity of hearing.

Advocate Karan Singh Thakur on behalf of Bhopal resident Subhash Shukla. He argued that the High Court had said in an order in 2004 that under a policy of 1988, the service of many daily wage earners was terminated.

After this, in 2004, the government reviewed the said policy and decided to restore the removed personnel under the previous policy. After this, hundreds of personnel were given benefits under the said decision. It was argued that there was no interim relief in the case of the petitioner, but his case is covered by the said order.