Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Ajwar v. Waseem and another reported in

: Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Gupta, G.A., Court No. - 70 Mrityunjay Singh HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. List revised. None appears on behalf of accused-opposite party No. 2 despite names of Shri Vikrant Gupta and Shri Mrityunjay Singh have been printed in the cause list.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, 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 Faiz vide order dated 04.01.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47820 of 2022 in Case Crime No. 189 of 2022 under Section 363, 376 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Bilaspur, District Rampur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-informant submits that the accused-opposite party no.2 was granted vide order dated 04.01.2023 subject to the following conditions:- "A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court 2 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected. E. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the condition no. D imposed upon the opposite party no.2 was to the effect that the opposite party no.2 shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected. Learned counsel further argued that the opposite party no.2 not only during the pendency of the trial has repeated the same offence with the same prosecutrix. He further submits, a first information report dated 04.04.2025 was also lodged against the opposite party no.2 in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025 under Section 76, 351(2) of B.N.S. read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur. Learned counsel thus argued that the opposite party no.2 has violated the condition imposed upon him and therefore the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.

6. Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. 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 3 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 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.

8. 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: 4 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 (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 the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud."

9. Perusal of the record shows that the opposite party no.2 was granted bail under Section 363, 376 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act vide order dated 04.01.2023 subject to following conditions:- "A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected. E. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

10. It is apparent that the opposite party no.2 was granted bail under Section 376, 363 I.P.C., though he committed the offence under Section 76, 351(2) of B.N.S., read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act but this Court takes note of the fact that the said offence has been committed with the same prosecutrix, which itself demonstrates that the opposite party no.2 has not only violated the condition No.D but it also amounts to tamper with the evidence, pressurizing and intimating the witnesses, which has been mentioned in condition B of the bail order, thus the opposite party no.2 has misused the liberty of bail as has been stated in condition No.E. 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 the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 is liable 5 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 to be cancelled.

11. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is allowed and the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 vide order 04.01.2023 is set aside.

12. The accused-opposite party no.2 is directed to appear and surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on or before 15.09.2025, who shall take him in custody immediately and send him in jail.

13. In case of failure of non appearance of the accused- opposite party no.2 before the court concerned, the court concerned shall be at liberty to make arrest of the accused- opposite party no.2.

14. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur by FAX within four days from today for necessary compliance. September 9, 2025 S.Ali (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Gupta, G.A., Court No. - 70 Mrityunjay Singh HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. List revised. None appears on behalf of accused-opposite party No. 2 despite names of Shri Vikrant Gupta and Shri Mrityunjay Singh have been printed in the cause list.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, 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 Faiz vide order dated 04.01.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47820 of 2022 in Case Crime No. 189 of 2022 under Section 363, 376 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Bilaspur, District Rampur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-informant submits that the accused-opposite party no.2 was granted vide order dated 04.01.2023 subject to the following conditions:- "A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court 2 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected. E. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the condition no. D imposed upon the opposite party no.2 was to the effect that the opposite party no.2 shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected. Learned counsel further argued that the opposite party no.2 not only during the pendency of the trial has repeated the same offence with the same prosecutrix. He further submits, a first information report dated 04.04.2025 was also lodged against the opposite party no.2 in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025 under Section 76, 351(2) of B.N.S. read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur. Learned counsel thus argued that the opposite party no.2 has violated the condition imposed upon him and therefore the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.

6. Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. 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 3 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 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.

8. 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: 4 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 (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 the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud."

9. Perusal of the record shows that the opposite party no.2 was granted bail under Section 363, 376 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act vide order dated 04.01.2023 subject to following conditions:- "A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected. E. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

10. It is apparent that the opposite party no.2 was granted bail under Section 376, 363 I.P.C., though he committed the offence under Section 76, 351(2) of B.N.S., read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act but this Court takes note of the fact that the said offence has been committed with the same prosecutrix, which itself demonstrates that the opposite party no.2 has not only violated the condition No.D but it also amounts to tamper with the evidence, pressurizing and intimating the witnesses, which has been mentioned in condition B of the bail order, thus the opposite party no.2 has misused the liberty of bail as has been stated in condition No.E. 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 the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 is liable 5 BAILC No. 217 of 2025 to be cancelled.

11. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is allowed and the bail granted to the accused-opposite party no.2 vide order 04.01.2023 is set aside.

12. The accused-opposite party no.2 is directed to appear and surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on or before 15.09.2025, who shall take him in custody immediately and send him in jail.

13. In case of failure of non appearance of the accused- opposite party no.2 before the court concerned, the court concerned shall be at liberty to make arrest of the accused- opposite party no.2.

14. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur by FAX within four days from today for necessary compliance. September 9, 2025 S.Ali (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad