Hirdesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another) and listed today in which a detailed order of

first day of presentation of the matter the following order was passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court:- "1. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 through C.J.M. concerned.

2. Learned AGA is also directed to serve the notice upon informant through concerned Investigating Officer.

3. Put up this case as fresh on 12.12.2025. "

3. Further the order-sheet shows that an office report dated 11.12.2025 was given by the office which reads as under:- "Report regarding service of notice is awaited."

4. Further the order-sheet reflects that on 15.12.2025 an order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by which the criminal appeal was allowed and the order impugned 03.09.2025 was set-aside and the bail granted to the respondent no.2 was cancelled. He was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, the said order reads as under:- "1. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State and perused the record. 2 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025

3. Appellants/ informant have filed this appeal with a prayer to cancel the bail order dated

3.9.2025 of the opposite party no.2 (Arsheel @ Amaan) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Mahoba in Second Bail Application Computer No.723/2025 ( Arsheel @ Amaan Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(5A), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba; otherwise, the applicant/appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted opposite party no.2 filed his first bail application no. 937/2024 Arsheel @ Amaan vs State of U.P. before Special Judge Sc/St Act, Mahoba and it was rejected on 07-11-2024. Aggrieved by rejection order dated 07-11-2024, he filed bail application before this Court and said bail application Criminal Appeal No. 11380/2024 Arsheel @ Amaan was rejected by a coordinate bench on 09-04-2025. Subsequently he filed second bail application before same Court of Special Judge Sc/St. His second bail application no.723/ 2025 Arsheel @ Amaan was allowed by the Learned Subordinate Court . Learned Trial Court, being aware that first bail application of opposite party has already been rejected by this Court, allowed the second bail application. Entertaining Second bail application by Subordinate Court after rejection of first bail application amounts to gross illegality.

5. Learned AGA has also conceded that if first bail application was rejected by this Court, it was not proper for Learned Subordinate Court to entertain the second bail application of opposite party no.2. He submitted it is settled law that successive bail applications shall be placed before the same Court.

6. Heard Learned Counsels and perused the records. It is apparent from records that second bail application no.723/ 2025 Arsheel @ Amaan was allowed by the Learned Subordinate Court after first bail application of opposite party no.2 was rejected. It has been settled in catena of judgements that successive bail applications shall be placed before the same court under changed circumstances. Apart from it, court entertaining second bail application is also duty bound to consider the grounds on which first bail application was rejected. Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr, AIR 2005 SC 921 held:- "This Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications."

7. I have carefully examined the rejection order dated 09-04-2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11380/ 2024. The court, while rejecting the bail application of the opposing party numbered -2, has considered the available evidence, including the CCTV footage collected by the I.O., and has concluded that the evidence is sufficient to indicate the active involvement of the opposing party no.2. 3 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025

8. The Learned Court's findings in Second Bail Application no. 723/2025 were also reviewed. The order in the second bail application clearly shows that the prosecution opposed it. They argued that CCTV footage, which they claimed was material evidence, had not been collected by the I.O. Consequently, an application for further investigation is pending for hearing before the Court. The prosecution also requested a defer the hearing until the further investigation application is heard. However, the Trial Court conceded the accused counsel's argument and held that bail can only be considered if the materials are available at the time of the hearing. It further considered that co accused has already been granted bail and the case of the accused is on same footing.

9. The impugned order dated 3.9.2025 passed in the second bail application clearly shows that the learned court failed to mention any reasons or grounds considered by the coordinate bench of this court while rejecting the earlier bail application. In such cases, the court was bound to record the fresh grounds that led it to adopt a different stance compared to the earlier applications. However, Trial Court not only ignored the grounds and reason assigned by Coordinate Bench to reject the earlier bail application of opposite party no.2, but had also committed a grave error in refusing to adjourn the hearing on request of prosecution. If Coordinate Bench rejected the accused's earlier bail application based on CCTV footage not collected by the I.O. during the investigation, it was enough for the learned court to be cautious and wait for an order on that matter. Even the grounds considered by Learned Court to grant second bail are not convincing.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Impugned order 3.9.2025 is set aside. The bail granted to respondent no.2- Arsheel @ Amaan is cancelled.

11. Opposite Party No. 2 (Arsheel @ Amaan) is directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks from today. If he fails to surrender, coercive steps will be taken against him."

5. The said order dated 15.12.2025 was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1123 / 2026 which was connected with SLP (Crl.) No. 880 / 2026 (Junaid Khan @ Sheebu Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which has been allowed and disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2026. The said order reads as under:- "Leave granted.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, with reference to the impugned orders, brought to our notice the fact that the appellants were not heard by the High Court while passing the impugned order(s) and thereby cancelling the relief of regular bail granted to them by the Sessions Court.

3. He submitted that the liberty of the appellants herein has been taken away in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellants were not heard by the High Court and the relief of bail granted to them by the Sessions Court has been cancelled. On that short ground alone, this Court may set aside the impugned order and grant the relief of bail to the appellants herein as this Court has already, by interim orders dated 19.01.2026 and 06.02.2026 4 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025 respectively, granted interim protection to the appellants herein.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that if this Court is inclined to hold that the appellants were not heard in the matters and therefore they have right of being heard then this Court may remand the matters to the High Court for a fresh consideration of Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 which were filed by the second respondent herein seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants herein by the Trial Court.

5. He submitted that if this Court is to remand the matters to the High Court then appropriate orders may be made with regard to the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.11314/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 in an expeditious manner so that the appellants also could be heard in the matters along with the respondent(s) herein and fresh orders could be made.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, appropriate orders may be made in these appeals.

7. We find that having regard to the fact that the appellants herein were granted the relief of bail by the Sessions Court and the same was cancelled at the instance of the second respondent herein by the High Court without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellants herein, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. On that short ground alone, the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remanded to the High court for reconsideration of Criminal Appeal No.11314/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 which are now restored on the file of the High Court.

8. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear before the High Court on 20.04.2026 without expecting any separate notices from the High Court.

9. The High Court is requested to consider these appeals filed by the second respondent herein by affording a reasonable opportunity to all parties and to dispose of the appeals in an expeditious manner and preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

10. Since this Court had passed interim orders dated 19.01.2026 and 06.02.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.1710/2026 and Criminal Appeal No.1711/2026 respectively by granting interim protection to the appellants herein, the same shall be continued till the disposal of the Criminal Appeals by the High Court.

11. These Criminal Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

6. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

7. Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2- Arshul @ Amaan and submits that he shall be filing his Vakalatnama on his behalf and also a counter affidavit within a week. 5 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025

8. Prayer is allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant shall have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit to the same, if any.

10. Learned counsel for the State may also file a response, if any within the said period to which a response may be filed by the appellant, if any, within the aforesaid period.

11. Let the matter be listed on 05.05.2026 along with the leading matter. April 21, 2026 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

first day of presentation of the matter the following order was passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court:- "1. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 through C.J.M. concerned.

2. Learned AGA is also directed to serve the notice upon informant through concerned Investigating Officer.

3. Put up this case as fresh on 12.12.2025. "

3. Further the order-sheet shows that an office report dated 11.12.2025 was given by the office which reads as under:- "Report regarding service of notice is awaited."

4. Further the order-sheet reflects that on 15.12.2025 an order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by which the criminal appeal was allowed and the order impugned 03.09.2025 was set-aside and the bail granted to the respondent no.2 was cancelled. He was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, the said order reads as under:- "1. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State and perused the record. 2 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025

3. Appellants/ informant have filed this appeal with a prayer to cancel the bail order dated

3.9.2025 of the opposite party no.2 (Arsheel @ Amaan) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Mahoba in Second Bail Application Computer No.723/2025 ( Arsheel @ Amaan Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(5A), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba; otherwise, the applicant/appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted opposite party no.2 filed his first bail application no. 937/2024 Arsheel @ Amaan vs State of U.P. before Special Judge Sc/St Act, Mahoba and it was rejected on 07-11-2024. Aggrieved by rejection order dated 07-11-2024, he filed bail application before this Court and said bail application Criminal Appeal No. 11380/2024 Arsheel @ Amaan was rejected by a coordinate bench on 09-04-2025. Subsequently he filed second bail application before same Court of Special Judge Sc/St. His second bail application no.723/ 2025 Arsheel @ Amaan was allowed by the Learned Subordinate Court . Learned Trial Court, being aware that first bail application of opposite party has already been rejected by this Court, allowed the second bail application. Entertaining Second bail application by Subordinate Court after rejection of first bail application amounts to gross illegality.

5. Learned AGA has also conceded that if first bail application was rejected by this Court, it was not proper for Learned Subordinate Court to entertain the second bail application of opposite party no.2. He submitted it is settled law that successive bail applications shall be placed before the same Court.

6. Heard Learned Counsels and perused the records. It is apparent from records that second bail application no.723/ 2025 Arsheel @ Amaan was allowed by the Learned Subordinate Court after first bail application of opposite party no.2 was rejected. It has been settled in catena of judgements that successive bail applications shall be placed before the same court under changed circumstances. Apart from it, court entertaining second bail application is also duty bound to consider the grounds on which first bail application was rejected. Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr, AIR 2005 SC 921 held:- "This Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications."

7. I have carefully examined the rejection order dated 09-04-2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11380/ 2024. The court, while rejecting the bail application of the opposing party numbered -2, has considered the available evidence, including the CCTV footage collected by the I.O., and has concluded that the evidence is sufficient to indicate the active involvement of the opposing party no.2. 3 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025

8. The Learned Court's findings in Second Bail Application no. 723/2025 were also reviewed. The order in the second bail application clearly shows that the prosecution opposed it. They argued that CCTV footage, which they claimed was material evidence, had not been collected by the I.O. Consequently, an application for further investigation is pending for hearing before the Court. The prosecution also requested a defer the hearing until the further investigation application is heard. However, the Trial Court conceded the accused counsel's argument and held that bail can only be considered if the materials are available at the time of the hearing. It further considered that co accused has already been granted bail and the case of the accused is on same footing.

9. The impugned order dated 3.9.2025 passed in the second bail application clearly shows that the learned court failed to mention any reasons or grounds considered by the coordinate bench of this court while rejecting the earlier bail application. In such cases, the court was bound to record the fresh grounds that led it to adopt a different stance compared to the earlier applications. However, Trial Court not only ignored the grounds and reason assigned by Coordinate Bench to reject the earlier bail application of opposite party no.2, but had also committed a grave error in refusing to adjourn the hearing on request of prosecution. If Coordinate Bench rejected the accused's earlier bail application based on CCTV footage not collected by the I.O. during the investigation, it was enough for the learned court to be cautious and wait for an order on that matter. Even the grounds considered by Learned Court to grant second bail are not convincing.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Impugned order 3.9.2025 is set aside. The bail granted to respondent no.2- Arsheel @ Amaan is cancelled.

11. Opposite Party No. 2 (Arsheel @ Amaan) is directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks from today. If he fails to surrender, coercive steps will be taken against him."

5. The said order dated 15.12.2025 was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1123 / 2026 which was connected with SLP (Crl.) No. 880 / 2026 (Junaid Khan @ Sheebu Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which has been allowed and disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2026. The said order reads as under:- "Leave granted.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, with reference to the impugned orders, brought to our notice the fact that the appellants were not heard by the High Court while passing the impugned order(s) and thereby cancelling the relief of regular bail granted to them by the Sessions Court.

3. He submitted that the liberty of the appellants herein has been taken away in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellants were not heard by the High Court and the relief of bail granted to them by the Sessions Court has been cancelled. On that short ground alone, this Court may set aside the impugned order and grant the relief of bail to the appellants herein as this Court has already, by interim orders dated 19.01.2026 and 06.02.2026 4 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025 respectively, granted interim protection to the appellants herein.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that if this Court is inclined to hold that the appellants were not heard in the matters and therefore they have right of being heard then this Court may remand the matters to the High Court for a fresh consideration of Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 which were filed by the second respondent herein seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants herein by the Trial Court.

5. He submitted that if this Court is to remand the matters to the High Court then appropriate orders may be made with regard to the disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.11314/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 in an expeditious manner so that the appellants also could be heard in the matters along with the respondent(s) herein and fresh orders could be made.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, appropriate orders may be made in these appeals.

7. We find that having regard to the fact that the appellants herein were granted the relief of bail by the Sessions Court and the same was cancelled at the instance of the second respondent herein by the High Court without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellants herein, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. On that short ground alone, the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remanded to the High court for reconsideration of Criminal Appeal No.11314/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 which are now restored on the file of the High Court.

8. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear before the High Court on 20.04.2026 without expecting any separate notices from the High Court.

9. The High Court is requested to consider these appeals filed by the second respondent herein by affording a reasonable opportunity to all parties and to dispose of the appeals in an expeditious manner and preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

10. Since this Court had passed interim orders dated 19.01.2026 and 06.02.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.1710/2026 and Criminal Appeal No.1711/2026 respectively by granting interim protection to the appellants herein, the same shall be continued till the disposal of the Criminal Appeals by the High Court.

11. These Criminal Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

6. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

7. Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2- Arshul @ Amaan and submits that he shall be filing his Vakalatnama on his behalf and also a counter affidavit within a week. 5 CRLA No. 10391 of 2025

8. Prayer is allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant shall have a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit to the same, if any.

10. Learned counsel for the State may also file a response, if any within the said period to which a response may be filed by the appellant, if any, within the aforesaid period.

11. Let the matter be listed on 05.05.2026 along with the leading matter. April 21, 2026 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad