Baburam v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
3. This is an application under Section 483(3) BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite part no.2/Baburam vide order dated 01.07.2025 by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21500 of 2025 (Baburam Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) in Case Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 87, 137(2), 64, 127(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Jaria, District Hamirpur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the first informant of the present matter. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2/Baburam has been granted bail vide order dated 01.07.2025 of this Court and in the said order, conditions have been imposed that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner. Further, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. The same are in para 10(i), (iv) of the said order. It is further submitted while placing para 13 of the affidavit that after release on bail the opposite party no.2 is continuously harassing and threatening the applicant and his daughter who is the victim for dire consequences. Further, while placing para 14 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant has given an application before the police higher authority regarding his grievance but nothing has been done, application dated 25.07.2025 has been placed before the Cort which is annexure 6 to the affidavit. It is further submitted while placing para 15 of the affidavit that the opposite party no.2 is threatening the victim and sending messages on her mobile. The messages as sent have been placed which are annexure 7 to the affidavit. It is submitted further while placing para 16 of the affidavit that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against opposite party no.2 in 2 BAILC No. 382 of 2025 the present matter and thus he has been found guilty by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that looking to the said facts, the bail of the opposite party no.2 be cancelled and he be directed to be arrested and sent to jail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and submitted that grant of bail and cancellation of bail are two different subjects. It is submitted that in so far as the moving of the application by the applicant before the higher authority is concerned, there is nothing on record to show as to how the said applications have been moved. It is submitted that in so far as the alleged messages on Whatsapp are concerned, the same cannot be looked into at this stage and cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is submitted that the bail cancellation application is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is a bail cancellation application. The opposite party no.2/Baburam has been granted bail vide order dated 01.07.2025. The ground as pleaded for cancellation of bail are in para 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit. The same reads as under: "13. That after releasing on bail the opposite party no.2 is continuously harassing and threatening to the applicant and his daughter/victim for dire consequences.
14. That the applicant has also given application before Police higher Authority regarding his grievances but nothing has been done. The true copy of applications dated 25.07.2025 is being filed and marked as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit.
15. That the after releasing on bail from this Hon'ble Court the accused Baburam/opposite party no.2 always threatening to victim and also sent messages on the mobile of the victim. The true copy of the messages sent by opposite party no.2 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.7 to this affidavit."
7. There is nothing substantial to show that the applications dated 25.07.2025 have been served and given to the police higher officials. In so far as the messages sent on the mobile of the victim are concerned, the same are also not to be relied upon at this stage.
8. The law with regard to the cancellation of bail is trite. In the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana : (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Apex Court held that : “4. 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 3 BAILC No. 382 of 2025 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.” (emphasis supplied)
9. Further in the case of X. v State of Telangana & Anr. : (2018) 16 SCC 511 the Apex Court in paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 held as under: "14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 observed that: "4. Rejection of a 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 the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of 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.
15. These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22: "23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the 4 BAILC No. 382 of 2025 accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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. The Apex Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. : (2020) 2 SCC 743 has in paragraph 8 held as under: "8. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to."
11. The law relating to exercise of powers for cancellation of bail has been stated by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. : (2022) 8 SCC 559. It has been held as follows: “C. Cancellation of bail
31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that 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 trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are: (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; (iv) possibility of the accused absconding; (v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail; (vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses. 5 BAILC No. 382 of 2025
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under : (SCC p. 513, para 12) “12. ... It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the court.” (emphasis supplied) 6 BAILC No. 382 of 2025
35. This Court in Mahipal [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] held that : (SCC p. 126, para 17) “17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment.”
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 848] held that : (SCC p. 195, paras 18-19) “18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. ...
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.””
12. No substantial ground exists to entertain the present bail cancellation application and is dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 15, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3. This is an application under Section 483(3) BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite part no.2/Baburam vide order dated 01.07.2025 by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21500 of 2025 (Baburam Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) in Case Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 87, 137(2), 64, 127(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Jaria, District Hamirpur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the first informant of the present matter. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2/Baburam has been granted bail vide order dated 01.07.2025 of this Court and in the said order, conditions have been imposed that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner. Further, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. The same are in para 10(i), (iv) of the said order. It is further submitted while placing para 13 of the affidavit that after release on bail the opposite party no.2 is continuously harassing and threatening the applicant and his daughter who is the victim for dire consequences. Further, while placing para 14 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant has given an application before the police higher authority regarding his grievance but nothing has been done, application dated 25.07.2025 has been placed before the Cort which is annexure 6 to the affidavit. It is further submitted while placing para 15 of the affidavit that the opposite party no.2 is threatening the victim and sending messages on her mobile. The messages as sent have been placed which are annexure 7 to the affidavit. It is submitted further while placing para 16 of the affidavit that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against opposite party no.2 in 2 BAILC No. 382 of 2025 the present matter and thus he has been found guilty by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that looking to the said facts, the bail of the opposite party no.2 be cancelled and he be directed to be arrested and sent to jail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and submitted that grant of bail and cancellation of bail are two different subjects. It is submitted that in so far as the moving of the application by the applicant before the higher authority is concerned, there is nothing on record to show as to how the said applications have been moved. It is submitted that in so far as the alleged messages on Whatsapp are concerned, the same cannot be looked into at this stage and cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is submitted that the bail cancellation application is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is a bail cancellation application. The opposite party no.2/Baburam has been granted bail vide order dated 01.07.2025. The ground as pleaded for cancellation of bail are in para 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit. The same reads as under: "13. That after releasing on bail the opposite party no.2 is continuously harassing and threatening to the applicant and his daughter/victim for dire consequences.
14. That the applicant has also given application before Police higher Authority regarding his grievances but nothing has been done. The true copy of applications dated 25.07.2025 is being filed and marked as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit.
15. That the after releasing on bail from this Hon'ble Court the accused Baburam/opposite party no.2 always threatening to victim and also sent messages on the mobile of the victim. The true copy of the messages sent by opposite party no.2 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.7 to this affidavit."
7. There is nothing substantial to show that the applications dated 25.07.2025 have been served and given to the police higher officials. In so far as the messages sent on the mobile of the victim are concerned, the same are also not to be relied upon at this stage.
8. The law with regard to the cancellation of bail is trite. In the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana : (1995) 1 SCC 349 the Apex Court held that : “4. 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 3 BAILC No. 382 of 2025 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.” (emphasis supplied)
9. Further in the case of X. v State of Telangana & Anr. : (2018) 16 SCC 511 the Apex Court in paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 held as under: "14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Dolatram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 observed that: "4. Rejection of a 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 the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of 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.
15. These principles have been reiterated by another two Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22: "23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the 4 BAILC No. 382 of 2025 accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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. The Apex Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. : (2020) 2 SCC 743 has in paragraph 8 held as under: "8. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to."
11. The law relating to exercise of powers for cancellation of bail has been stated by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. : (2022) 8 SCC 559. It has been held as follows: “C. Cancellation of bail
31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that 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 trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are: (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; (iv) possibility of the accused absconding; (v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail; (vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses. 5 BAILC No. 382 of 2025
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under : (SCC p. 513, para 12) “12. ... It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the court.” (emphasis supplied) 6 BAILC No. 382 of 2025
35. This Court in Mahipal [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] held that : (SCC p. 126, para 17) “17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment.”
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 848] held that : (SCC p. 195, paras 18-19) “18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. ...
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.””
12. No substantial ground exists to entertain the present bail cancellation application and is dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 15, 2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal,J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad