High Court · 2025

1. Heard Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed to cancel the bail of opposite party no. 2 granted by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 45570 of 2024 (Manoj Vs. State of U.P. & three others) arising out of Case Crime No. 864 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 74, 123, 65(1) of BNS & Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, this is the bail cancellation application and applicant is informant of the case and instant application has been filed to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024.

4. He next submitted that on 12.12.2024 bail application of opposite party no. 2 was listed before the co-ordinate bench of this Court but after the transfer, this Court heard and disposed of the same but applicant could not aware about the transfer and without giving opportunity of hearing to him opposite party no. 2 has been enlarged on bail by this Court although instant matter also relates to the provision of POCSO Act.

5. He further submitted that even opposite party no. 2 very cleverly intentionally disclosed wrong district and police station in his bail application as applicant should not trace the bail application filed by him.

6. He further submitted that after released on bail opposite party no. 2 is also threatening the applicant and victim.

7. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts bail granted to opposite party no. 2 should be cancelled.

8. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that on the ground taken by applicant bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled.

9. He further submitted that in para-15, applicant has specifically averred that case was listed in another Court and after transfer this Bench heard the matter and therefore, it appears, he was having knowledge that bail application of opposite party no. 2 had been listed on 12.12.2024 and therefore, in the light of averment made in para-15, the averment of para-14 that intentionally opposite party no. 2 disclosed wrong police station and district in his bail application and therefore, he could not become aware about filing of his bail application appears to be wrong.

10. He further submits, however, applicant made an averment in the instant bail cancellation application that after released on bail opposite party no. 2 threatened him but averments appear to be vague and on such averments bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled.

11. He further submits, therefore, the instant bail cancellation application should be dismissed.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. This is bail cancellation application and following three grounds have been taken by the applicant in the instant bail application:- (1) Opposite party no. 2 intentionally disclosed wrong district and police station in his bail application and therefore, applicant who was informant of the case could not become aware that he had filed bail application before this Court; (2) on 12.12.2024 when the bail was granted to opposite party no. 2 by this Court then the matter was listed before the co-ordinate Bench and after transfer, the matter was heard by this Bench and without issuing notice to the first informant i.e. applicant bail was granted and (3) After released on bail opposite party no. 2 is threatening the applicant and victim.

14. As far as first ground taken by the applicant in the instant bail cancellation application is concerned on the basis of such ground, the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled.

15. Further, ground no. 1 has been taken by the applicant in para- 14 which is contrary to the averment made by applicant in para-15 of the instant bail cancellation application as from para-15 of the bail cancellation application, it reflects, applicant was aware that bail application of opposite party no. 2 was listed before another bench on 12.12.2024.

16. Further, however, it reflects matter relates to provisions of POCSO Act and without issuing notices to applicant i.e. informant of the case, bail application of opposite party no. 2 was heard but from the bail granting order dated 12.12.2024 it reflects that learned AGA categorically apprised the Court that on 20.11.2024, notice has already been served to informant i.e. applicant but none appeared on his behalf even in revised call and therefore, in view of the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Ajeet Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another vide order dated 11.1.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 45784 of 2020, the bail application was heard and allowed.

17. Further, from the instant bail cancellation application it could not be reflected that notice of bail application filed by opposite party no. 2 was never served upon applicant as apprised by learned AGA.

18. Further, as far as ground No. 3 is concerned however as per applicant, opposite party no. 2 after enlarged on bail is threatening him and his family members but averments made with regard to this ground appears to be vague. Further, even it could not be reflected that applicant lodged any complaint against opposite party no. 2.

19. Further, law is settled that it is easy to reject a bail application but it is very difficult to cancel the bail already granted to the accused and for cancellation of bail very overwhelming and cogent material should be available on record which is completely missing in the present matter.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

21. Accordingly, The instant bail cancellation application, stands dismissed.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed to cancel the bail of opposite party no. 2 granted by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 45570 of 2024 (Manoj Vs. State of U.P. & three others) arising out of Case Crime No. 864 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 74, 123, 65(1) of BNS & Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, this is the bail cancellation application and applicant is informant of the case and instant application has been filed to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024.

4. He next submitted that on 12.12.2024 bail application of opposite party no. 2 was listed before the co-ordinate bench of this Court but after the transfer, this Court heard and disposed of the same but applicant could not aware about the transfer and without giving opportunity of hearing to him opposite party no. 2 has been enlarged on bail by this Court although instant matter also relates to the provision of POCSO Act.

5. He further submitted that even opposite party no. 2 very cleverly intentionally disclosed wrong district and police station in his bail application as applicant should not trace the bail application filed by him.

6. He further submitted that after released on bail opposite party no. 2 is also threatening the applicant and victim.

7. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts bail granted to opposite party no. 2 should be cancelled.

8. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that on the ground taken by applicant bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled.

9. He further submitted that in para-15, applicant has specifically averred that case was listed in another Court and after transfer this Bench heard the matter and therefore, it appears, he was having knowledge that bail application of opposite party no. 2 had been listed on 12.12.2024 and therefore, in the light of averment made in para-15, the averment of para-14 that intentionally opposite party no. 2 disclosed wrong police station and district in his bail application and therefore, he could not become aware about filing of his bail application appears to be wrong.

10. He further submits, however, applicant made an averment in the instant bail cancellation application that after released on bail opposite party no. 2 threatened him but averments appear to be vague and on such averments bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled.

11. He further submits, therefore, the instant bail cancellation application should be dismissed.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. This is bail cancellation application and following three grounds have been taken by the applicant in the instant bail application:- (1) Opposite party no. 2 intentionally disclosed wrong district and police station in his bail application and therefore, applicant who was informant of the case could not become aware that he had filed bail application before this Court; (2) on 12.12.2024 when the bail was granted to opposite party no. 2 by this Court then the matter was listed before the co-ordinate Bench and after transfer, the matter was heard by this Bench and without issuing notice to the first informant i.e. applicant bail was granted and (3) After released on bail opposite party no. 2 is threatening the applicant and victim.

14. As far as first ground taken by the applicant in the instant bail cancellation application is concerned on the basis of such ground, the bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled.

15. Further, ground no. 1 has been taken by the applicant in para- 14 which is contrary to the averment made by applicant in para-15 of the instant bail cancellation application as from para-15 of the bail cancellation application, it reflects, applicant was aware that bail application of opposite party no. 2 was listed before another bench on 12.12.2024.

16. Further, however, it reflects matter relates to provisions of POCSO Act and without issuing notices to applicant i.e. informant of the case, bail application of opposite party no. 2 was heard but from the bail granting order dated 12.12.2024 it reflects that learned AGA categorically apprised the Court that on 20.11.2024, notice has already been served to informant i.e. applicant but none appeared on his behalf even in revised call and therefore, in view of the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Ajeet Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another vide order dated 11.1.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 45784 of 2020, the bail application was heard and allowed.

17. Further, from the instant bail cancellation application it could not be reflected that notice of bail application filed by opposite party no. 2 was never served upon applicant as apprised by learned AGA.

18. Further, as far as ground No. 3 is concerned however as per applicant, opposite party no. 2 after enlarged on bail is threatening him and his family members but averments made with regard to this ground appears to be vague. Further, even it could not be reflected that applicant lodged any complaint against opposite party no. 2.

19. Further, law is settled that it is easy to reject a bail application but it is very difficult to cancel the bail already granted to the accused and for cancellation of bail very overwhelming and cogent material should be available on record which is completely missing in the present matter.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

21. Accordingly, The instant bail cancellation application, stands dismissed.

22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad