Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suman @ Suman Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47319
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2496 of 2025
Appellant :- Smt. Suman @ Suman Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 11 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Garima Singh,Harshit Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal has been filed seeking cancellation of bail of opposite party nos 2 to 11 namely Belase alias Ram Bilash, Balakram, Ramjeete, Kantu alias Ram Kumar, Nanke alias alias Manoram, Mastram, Parsu alias Parsuram, Nathu alias Pravin, Chetram, Musibat alias Satish and opposite party no.12 Khedu alias Amarjeet granted by the concerned Session's Court vide order(s) dated 03.04.2025 and 06.04.2025.
3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that on a written report of the appellant namely Smt. Suman alias Suman Devi, Case Crime No. 301/2022 was registered at P.S.-Sirsia, District-Shravasti, under Sections 147/148/323/504/506/427/308/325 IPC and 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act.
4. The opposite party nos.2 to 12 were enlarged on bail, however in the entire appeal the dates of said bail order(s) have not been indicated.
5. Subsequent to the aforesaid bail order(s), Section 324/326 IPC were added and therefore the opposite party nos. 2 to 12 surrendered before the competent court of jurisdiction and thereafter sent to jail.
6. After the aforesaid, the bail application(s) were preferred by opposite party nos. 2 to 12 named above, with a prayer to enlarge on bail for the offence under Sections 324/326 IPC (added Sections).
7. The Additional District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti, allowed the said bail application(s).
8. The opposite party nos.2 to 11 were enlarged on bail vide order dated 03.04.2025 and opposite party no. 12 was enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.04.2025 and impeaching these order(s) the present present appeal for cancellation of bail has been filed.
9. The present appeal has been filed on the following main grounds:-
A. Because, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 12, after being released on bail, have willfully violated the conditions imposed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST). Shravasti. They have threatened the applicant and her family members, pressuring them to compromise or withdraw the case, thereby directly breaching the condition not to intimidate or influence the witnesses.
B. Because, the accused persons have deliberately evaded court proceedings and failed to appear despite being summoned, compelling the trial court to issue Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) dated 06.03.2025. This reflects their non-cooperative attitude and disregard for the legal process.
C. Because, the trial court, upon finding sufficient prima facie material, has enhanced the charges by including Sections 324 and 326 IPC through an order dated 30.08.2024 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This indicates that serious injuries and grievous offences are now attributed to the accused, warranting reconsideration of their bail status.
D. Because, the offences alleged include attempt to murder (Section 308 IPC), causing grievous hurt (Section 326 IPC), and atrocities under the SC/ST Act, which are serious in nature and carry severe punishment. Granting or continuing bail in such matters poses a threat to public interest and the victim's safety.
10. Before considering the grounds, indicated herein-above, and coming to the conclusion based upon the same it would be apt to indicate the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to cancellation of bail, according to which, the personal liberty of the concerned should not be curtailed on vague and bogus ground(s).
11. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Imran Vs. Mohd. Bhava & Another, (2022) 13 SCC 70 reads as under.
"21. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellant and the respondents herein, in our considered opinion, the key issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether the High Court has exercised its discretion in a mechanical manner i.e. whether the impugned orders of the High Court have overlooked established principles, while exercising discretion to enlarge both the accused on bail.
22. Before we undertake an analysis of the nature of material available against the respondent-accused, it is pertinent to address the contention raised by Accused 8 emphasising that cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail. Further, cancellation of bail is contingent upon supervening circumstances which might render it difficult to hold a fair trial.
23. Indeed, it is a well-established principle that once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment in Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 854 has also reiterated, that while conventionally, certain supervening circumstances impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an accused, for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can also be revoked by a superior court when the previous court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact. It was thus observed:-
"9. ... Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237 observed that :
"Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
10. These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recently by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in X vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2018) 16 SCC 511 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902] .
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system."
24. Earlier also this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 has observed :
"9. Undoubtedly, considerations applicable to the grant of bail and considerations for cancellation of such an order of bail are independent and do not overlap each other, but in the event of non-consideration of considerations relevant for the purpose of grant of bail and in the event an earlier order of rejection available on the records, it is a duty incumbent on to the High Court to explicitly state the reasons as to why the sudden departure in the order of grant as against the rejection just about a month ago."
25. Similarly, in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496, it has been observed :
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. In Masroor (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member, observed as follows : "Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence." (2005) 8 SCC 21, (2001) 4 SCC 280, (2002) 3 SCC 598 (See also : State of Maharashtra Vs. Ritesh , (2010) 14 SCC 496, Panchanan Mishra Vs. Digambar Mishra & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 422, Vijay Kumar Vs. Narendra & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 364 and Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad , (2005) 7 SCC 326"
26. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of the superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited hereinabove, enumerate certain basic principles which must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to the abovementioned well-settled principles."
12. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also the facts pleaded and material placed on record, this Court finds that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is for the reason that to substantiate the allegations levelled in ground 'A' no document/evidence has been placed on record and on other grounds, to the view of this Court, the bail order(s) are not liable to be cancelled.
13. In view of aforesaid observations, this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.08.2025
Jyoti/-
