Allahabad High Court
Nisha vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:164869
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 356 of 2024
Nisha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Niyaj Ahamad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Meraj Ahmad Khan, G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. List revised. None appears for the opposite party no.2 although the name of Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has been shown in the cause list.
2. Heard learned counsel for the informant-applicant, Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material on record.
3. The instant bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of the informant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 namely Ishwar Singh vide order dated 21.02.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6327 of 2024 in Case Crime No.893 of 2023 under Sections 323, 328, 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.
4. Learned counsel for the informant-applicant has submitted that the plea for grant of bail taken by the accused-opposite party no.2 is false and fabricated and that the opposite party no.2 has not come up before this Court with clean hands. He further submitted that the C.C.T.V. footage annexed with the bail application as Annexure-11 is also forged document. Learned counsel further argued that the term and conditions contained in the bail order dated 21.02.2024 has been violated by the accused-opposite party no.2 Learned counsel further argued that the accused-oppopsite party no.2 after releasing from jail is continuously and regularly threatening the applicant to withdraw the case. He thus submits that in view of the aforesaid, the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled.
5. Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Ajwar Vs. Waseem and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 768 has observed in paragraph no.28 and 29 which relates to consideration for setting aside the bail orders. The paragraph no. 28 and 29 read as under:
CONSIDERATIONS FOR SETTING ASIDE BAIL ORDERS
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three-Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Ram Bilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338); Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another (2008) 13 SCC 584.
7. Apart from the aforesaid decision of Ajwar (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in paragraph no. 11 in the matter Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 (4) SCC 222, which is quoted below:-
"11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail:
(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him;
(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;
(c ) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail;
(d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud."
8. Perusal of the record shows that the opposite party no.2 was granted bail vide order dated 21.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant initially advanced submissions with regard to factual aspect of the matter and thereafter he has submitted that the term and conditions contained in the bail order dated 21.02.2024 has been violated by the accused-opposite party no.2 and after being released from jail, he is continuously and regularly threatening the applicant to withdraw the case. This Court takes note of the fact that learned counsel for the applicant could not bring on record material to demonstrate that the opposite party No.2 has violated the conditions imposed while granting bail. Furthermore, with regard to threatening, there is no report or application brought on record to demonstrate the same. Merely stating that the opposite party no.2 has violated the conditions and is threatening the applicant has no force as may found acceptance with this Court as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, considering the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Himanshu (supra) as well Ajwar (supra), this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for cancelling the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2.
9. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application lacks merit and is dismissed. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 10, 2025 S.Ali/S.Mishra
