Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another), whereby the bail granted to the

Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred against order dated

19.04.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Criminal Misc. (Bail Cancellation Application) No. 57 of 2025 (Surendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another), whereby the bail granted to the applicant by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, has been cancelled.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised a preliminary objection that this application against the order, by which the bail of applicant was cancelled, is not maintainable. In this regard, learned counsel has referred case of Neeraj Vashney Vs. State of U.P.; 2016:AHC:187213-DB.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of law laid down in case of Surendra Kuwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Criminal Revision No. 691 of 2015), decided on 20.01.2016, this application under Section - 528 BNSS would be maintainable.

6. On merits, it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate for applicant that applicant was granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The bail granted to the applicant was mainly cancelled on the ground that applicant has concealed his criminal history. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that in fact eight cases were registered against applicant simultaneously and out of them in six cases the police have submitted final report but record of the same could not be traced. In view of facts of the matter, the bail granted to the applicant by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh was not liable to be cancelled on technical ground that applicant has not disclosed his criminal history. Learned Senior Advocate has referred facts of the matter and submitted that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and on merits a case for bail was made out and thus, the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant has opposed the application and submitted that there are serious allegations against applicant and that informant was cheated to tune of huge amount and that a prima facie case is made out against applicant. It is further submitted that as bail granted to the applicant was cancelled on the ground that he has concealed his criminal history thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

9. So far the maintainability of this application under Section - 528 BNSS is concerned, it is apparent from the provision itself that it starts with non-obstante clause that nothing in BNSS shall be deeded to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the 'Sanhita' or to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In case of Surendra Kuwar Singh (Supra) a reference has been made that against an order by which bail has been cancelled, a petition under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. can be maintained. Similar observation has been made in case of Surya Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 1999 CRI. L. J. 496. In case of Neeraj Vashney (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that against such order criminal revision is not maintainable but no such observation has been made regarding an application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS. Thus, it appears that against an order, by which bail granted by the Magistrate has been cancelled by the Sessions Judge, an application under Section - 528 BNSS would be maintainable but the interference in such application can be made only to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the 'Sanhita'.

10. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant was granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh vide order dated 10.12.2024. The opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section - 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant. That application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh vide impugned order dated 19.04.2025 and bail granted to the applicant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh was cancelled and applicant was directed to surrender before the Trial court within a week. Perusal of record shows that applicant has criminal history of eight cases. From the order dated 10.12.2024, by which bail was granted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, it appears that an argument was raised on behalf of the applicant that applicant has no criminal history. It could not be disputed that applicant has above referred criminal history of eight cases and thus, it is apparent that applicant has concealed his criminal history at the time of hearing in bail application before the C.J.M., Aligarh. Thus, bail to the applicant was granted by C.J.M., Aligarh on misrepresentation and concealment of facts. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh has committed any patent illegality or perversity by cancelling bail of the applicant. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by invoking powers under Section - 528 BNSS. The application under Section - 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 18.8.2025 / S Rawat

Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred against order dated

19.04.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Criminal Misc. (Bail Cancellation Application) No. 57 of 2025 (Surendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another), whereby the bail granted to the applicant by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, has been cancelled.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised a preliminary objection that this application against the order, by which the bail of applicant was cancelled, is not maintainable. In this regard, learned counsel has referred case of Neeraj Vashney Vs. State of U.P.; 2016:AHC:187213-DB.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of law laid down in case of Surendra Kuwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Criminal Revision No. 691 of 2015), decided on 20.01.2016, this application under Section - 528 BNSS would be maintainable.

6. On merits, it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate for applicant that applicant was granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. The bail granted to the applicant was mainly cancelled on the ground that applicant has concealed his criminal history. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that in fact eight cases were registered against applicant simultaneously and out of them in six cases the police have submitted final report but record of the same could not be traced. In view of facts of the matter, the bail granted to the applicant by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh was not liable to be cancelled on technical ground that applicant has not disclosed his criminal history. Learned Senior Advocate has referred facts of the matter and submitted that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and on merits a case for bail was made out and thus, the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 / informant has opposed the application and submitted that there are serious allegations against applicant and that informant was cheated to tune of huge amount and that a prima facie case is made out against applicant. It is further submitted that as bail granted to the applicant was cancelled on the ground that he has concealed his criminal history thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

9. So far the maintainability of this application under Section - 528 BNSS is concerned, it is apparent from the provision itself that it starts with non-obstante clause that nothing in BNSS shall be deeded to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the 'Sanhita' or to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In case of Surendra Kuwar Singh (Supra) a reference has been made that against an order by which bail has been cancelled, a petition under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. can be maintained. Similar observation has been made in case of Surya Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 1999 CRI. L. J. 496. In case of Neeraj Vashney (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that against such order criminal revision is not maintainable but no such observation has been made regarding an application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS. Thus, it appears that against an order, by which bail granted by the Magistrate has been cancelled by the Sessions Judge, an application under Section - 528 BNSS would be maintainable but the interference in such application can be made only to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the 'Sanhita'.

10. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant was granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh vide order dated 10.12.2024. The opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section - 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant. That application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh vide impugned order dated 19.04.2025 and bail granted to the applicant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh was cancelled and applicant was directed to surrender before the Trial court within a week. Perusal of record shows that applicant has criminal history of eight cases. From the order dated 10.12.2024, by which bail was granted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, it appears that an argument was raised on behalf of the applicant that applicant has no criminal history. It could not be disputed that applicant has above referred criminal history of eight cases and thus, it is apparent that applicant has concealed his criminal history at the time of hearing in bail application before the C.J.M., Aligarh. Thus, bail to the applicant was granted by C.J.M., Aligarh on misrepresentation and concealment of facts. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh has committed any patent illegality or perversity by cancelling bail of the applicant. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice, so as to require any interference by invoking powers under Section - 528 BNSS. The application under Section - 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 18.8.2025 / S Rawat