<p> The Supreme Court Friday granted two weeks time to Samajwadi Party leader Dilip Mishra to respond to a plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to him in a case related to the sensational bomb attack on then BSP leader and minister Nand Gopal Gupta in 2010 in Allahabad in which two persons had died of injuries.</p>.<p>It was argued that after Mishra was granted bail, 28 witnesses have turned hostile during the trial and there are sufficient material on record to show that he has allegedly committed various offences and has been threatening the witnesses in the case.</p>.<p>Gupta, who was in the Mayawati cabinet later joined BJP, and is presently a Minister of Civil Aviation, Political Pension, Minority Welfare, Muslim Waqf and Haj in Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government of Uttar Pradesh.</p>.<p>The apex court was hearing the appeal against the Allahabad High Court order of May 17, 2019 by which it had refused to cancel the bail granted to Mishra on May 19, 2014 by the trial court.</p>.<p>A charge sheet against Mishra and others under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act and the UP Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act was filed for offences including murder and attempt to murder for the incident of July 12, 2010.</p>.<p>Besides Mishra, there were around a dozen accused in the case.</p>.<p>Gupta along with his security guard and others was going to a temple when a bomb exploded near him in which he was seriously injured and two persons including a journalist from an English daily died later of injuries.</p>.<p>An apex court bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and M R Shah, which heard the matter through video conferencing, was told by advocate Sharan Thakur, appearing for the complainant and cousin of Gupta, that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to Mishra.</p>.<p>Advocate Ritu Reniwal appeared for Mishra and the bench “allowed two weeks' time to her to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit” while listing the matter in the week commencing from November 2 for hearing.</p>.<p>Thakur, who represented Kamal Kumar, complainant and cousin of Gupta, has contended that the high court did not cancel the bail “despite there being sufficient material on record showing that the accused has committed various offences and has been threatening the witnesses thereby violating the conditions on which bail was granted to him.”</p>.<p>“The high court erred in not considering the fact that the accused is a history-sheeter, a habitual offender and has committed as many as six offences after getting bail in the present case thereby violating the condition on which the bail was granted by the high court,” the plea said.</p>.<p>Even in the present case, the attack on the complainant's brother was planned and executed by the accused while being inside jail, in which Gupta was seriously injured and two others died “thereby showing the power and reach of the first respondent /accused,” the plea said.</p>.<p>“The high court has failed to note the mischievous conduct of the accused in threatening the witnesses and violation of conditions of bail by the accused by absenting himself from the trial proceedings and by indulging in criminal activity,” it said. </p>
<p> The Supreme Court Friday granted two weeks time to Samajwadi Party leader Dilip Mishra to respond to a plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to him in a case related to the sensational bomb attack on then BSP leader and minister Nand Gopal Gupta in 2010 in Allahabad in which two persons had died of injuries.</p>.<p>It was argued that after Mishra was granted bail, 28 witnesses have turned hostile during the trial and there are sufficient material on record to show that he has allegedly committed various offences and has been threatening the witnesses in the case.</p>.<p>Gupta, who was in the Mayawati cabinet later joined BJP, and is presently a Minister of Civil Aviation, Political Pension, Minority Welfare, Muslim Waqf and Haj in Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government of Uttar Pradesh.</p>.<p>The apex court was hearing the appeal against the Allahabad High Court order of May 17, 2019 by which it had refused to cancel the bail granted to Mishra on May 19, 2014 by the trial court.</p>.<p>A charge sheet against Mishra and others under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act and the UP Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act was filed for offences including murder and attempt to murder for the incident of July 12, 2010.</p>.<p>Besides Mishra, there were around a dozen accused in the case.</p>.<p>Gupta along with his security guard and others was going to a temple when a bomb exploded near him in which he was seriously injured and two persons including a journalist from an English daily died later of injuries.</p>.<p>An apex court bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and M R Shah, which heard the matter through video conferencing, was told by advocate Sharan Thakur, appearing for the complainant and cousin of Gupta, that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to Mishra.</p>.<p>Advocate Ritu Reniwal appeared for Mishra and the bench “allowed two weeks' time to her to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit” while listing the matter in the week commencing from November 2 for hearing.</p>.<p>Thakur, who represented Kamal Kumar, complainant and cousin of Gupta, has contended that the high court did not cancel the bail “despite there being sufficient material on record showing that the accused has committed various offences and has been threatening the witnesses thereby violating the conditions on which bail was granted to him.”</p>.<p>“The high court erred in not considering the fact that the accused is a history-sheeter, a habitual offender and has committed as many as six offences after getting bail in the present case thereby violating the condition on which the bail was granted by the high court,” the plea said.</p>.<p>Even in the present case, the attack on the complainant's brother was planned and executed by the accused while being inside jail, in which Gupta was seriously injured and two others died “thereby showing the power and reach of the first respondent /accused,” the plea said.</p>.<p>“The high court has failed to note the mischievous conduct of the accused in threatening the witnesses and violation of conditions of bail by the accused by absenting himself from the trial proceedings and by indulging in criminal activity,” it said. </p>