Jag Prasad Shukla v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And

accused persons Bajrang Prasad, Shriprakash Shukla and Ram Kailash Pandey.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant refers the grounds to cancel bail granted to accused. The exact present status of trial is not on record. Learned counsel in support of his submission submits that it is a fit case for cancellation of bail. He refers to the contents of paragraph Nos.5 to 13 of present application which are extracted hereinunder. "5. That the accused persons respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed their bail application before the court below on the basis of false fabricated story against the evidence on record in serious matter but the learned court below in colourable exercise of power without considering the grievous of offence committed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in ordinary way allowed the bail application vide order dated 17-05-2025 and accused persons released on bail from the jail and are making hindrance and misusing the liberty of bail and torturing the appellants and his family members, therefore, the bail granted in favour of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the bail application of Ram Kailash Pandey is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. 2 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025

6. That after releasing the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the jail came to the house and on 10-08-2025 scolded to the applicant and his family members including driver who has injured and said if the case is not withdrawn by the applicant and his witnesses, the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall kill to the appellant and his injured driver Raju at any time, therefore, the applicant is feeling great dangerous position to his family members. The copy of the application dated 10-08-2025 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit.

7. That the above noted case relating to the serious offence but investigating officer with the illegal help of the accused person delete the section-307 I.P.C. from the first information report and submitted charge sheet and trail is still pending before the learned court below.

8. That during releasing on bail, the accused persons scolding to the appellant and suggested to the appellant will not make pairvi of the case and will not produce the witnesses and fair trial could not be impleaded by the illegal pressure of the accused persons.

9. That in the interest of justice for making fair decision form the learned court below of the trial of the above noted case, the bail order of the accused persons dated 17-05-2025 may kindly be cancelled and concerned authority may be directed to sent jail to the accused persons to meet the ends of justice.

10. That if the bail of the accused persons the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not cancelled and the order dated 17-05-2025 is not quashed, the appellant shall suffer great judicial loss.

11. That the accused persons the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and his associates Shiv Shyam are making hindrance in peaceful living and working of the appellant and his family and all scolding to the appellant's family members including injured Raju to kill them.

12. That the respondents are making Gara bandi to kill the appellant and driver Raju at any time.

13. That the respondent nos. 2 3, and 4 are disobeying and flouting the order dated 17-05-2025 and are misusing the liberty of bail granted by court below, therefore, the bail of the respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be cancelled and they may be directed to appear before the court below and surrender to sent jail."

4. Learned counsel further submits that the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, after release from jail came to the house of the applicant and threatened the family 3 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 members including the driver to withdraw the case, therefore, the applicant is feeling danger to his life.

5. The prayer is to allow the applicant and cancel bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

6. On the issue of cancellation of bail, the Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 187, observed as under:- "11. While cancelling the bail granted to the appellants, the learned Single Judge referred to this Court's judgment in the case of Abdul Basit (supra). However, we are compelled to note that the ratio of the above judgment favours the case of the appellants. That apart, the judgment deals with the powers of the High Court to review its own order within the limited scope of Section 362 CrPC. Relevant observations from the above judgment are reproduced below: "14. Under Chapter XXXIII, Section 439(1) empowers the High Court as well as the Court of Session to direct any accused person to be released on bail. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code be arrested and committed to custody i.e., the power to cancel the bail granted to an accused person. Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (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. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Where bail has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in sixty days after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. However, in the last-mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed. (Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481)

15. The scope of this power to the High Court under Section 439(2) has been considered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 4 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 [(1978) 1 SCC 118]

16. In Gurcharan Singh case [(1978) 1 SCC 118] this Court has succinctly explained the provision regarding cancellation of bail under the Code, culled out the differences from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short "the old Code") and elucidated the position of law vis-à- vis powers of the courts granting and cancelling the bail. This Court observed as under: "16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly, under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position 5 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-à-vis the High Court." (emphasis supplied)

17. In this context, it is profitable to render reliance upon the decision of this Court in Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338]. In the said case, this Court held (SCC p. 345, para 11) that the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is absolutely different from cancelling an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation. In Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 13 SCC 584], the three-Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and further drawn the distinction between the two in respect of relief available in review or appeal. In this case, the High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the appellant in exercise of power under Section 439(2) of the Code. In appeal, it was contended before this Court that the High Court had erred by not appreciating the distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail. The Bench while affirming the principle laid down in Puran case [(2001) 6 SCC 338] has observed that when irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration by the court granting order of bail, the same makes the said order vulnerable and subject to scrutiny by the appellate court and that no review would lie under Section 362 of the Code. In essence, this Court has opined that if the order of grant of bail is perverse, the same can be set at naught only by the superior court and has left no room for a review by the same court.

18. Reverberating the aforesaid principle, this Court in the recent decision in Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC 797] has observed that: "19. There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the superior court."

19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from the concept of cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which require such cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions would present before us that an order granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the court superior to the court which granted the bail and not by the 6 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 same court.

20. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of it being perverse in law. Such determination would entail eventual cancellation of bail. The circumstances brought on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being perverse in law.

21. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order granting bail cannot be reviewed by the court passing such judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the court."

7. In the present case, applicants are facing trial for offence under Section 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 352, 324(4), 118(1) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The present status of trial is not on record.

8. It is alleged that there are violation of conditions of bail and accused /respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are threatening the applicant and his family members as also the witnesses of the case. However, considering the contents of application, referred above, as well as the law on the issue, this court finds no ground to cancel the bail for the reason that, to the view of this Court, the allegations are vague.

9. Accordingly, the application is rejected. However, learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, and in case, it is brought into notice of learned Trial Court that applicant has violated any condition of bail, learned Trial Court will be at liberty to cancel bail granted to accused. November 12, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

accused persons Bajrang Prasad, Shriprakash Shukla and Ram Kailash Pandey.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant refers the grounds to cancel bail granted to accused. The exact present status of trial is not on record. Learned counsel in support of his submission submits that it is a fit case for cancellation of bail. He refers to the contents of paragraph Nos.5 to 13 of present application which are extracted hereinunder. "5. That the accused persons respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed their bail application before the court below on the basis of false fabricated story against the evidence on record in serious matter but the learned court below in colourable exercise of power without considering the grievous of offence committed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in ordinary way allowed the bail application vide order dated 17-05-2025 and accused persons released on bail from the jail and are making hindrance and misusing the liberty of bail and torturing the appellants and his family members, therefore, the bail granted in favour of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the bail application of Ram Kailash Pandey is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit. 2 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025

6. That after releasing the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the jail came to the house and on 10-08-2025 scolded to the applicant and his family members including driver who has injured and said if the case is not withdrawn by the applicant and his witnesses, the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall kill to the appellant and his injured driver Raju at any time, therefore, the applicant is feeling great dangerous position to his family members. The copy of the application dated 10-08-2025 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit.

7. That the above noted case relating to the serious offence but investigating officer with the illegal help of the accused person delete the section-307 I.P.C. from the first information report and submitted charge sheet and trail is still pending before the learned court below.

8. That during releasing on bail, the accused persons scolding to the appellant and suggested to the appellant will not make pairvi of the case and will not produce the witnesses and fair trial could not be impleaded by the illegal pressure of the accused persons.

9. That in the interest of justice for making fair decision form the learned court below of the trial of the above noted case, the bail order of the accused persons dated 17-05-2025 may kindly be cancelled and concerned authority may be directed to sent jail to the accused persons to meet the ends of justice.

10. That if the bail of the accused persons the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not cancelled and the order dated 17-05-2025 is not quashed, the appellant shall suffer great judicial loss.

11. That the accused persons the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and his associates Shiv Shyam are making hindrance in peaceful living and working of the appellant and his family and all scolding to the appellant's family members including injured Raju to kill them.

12. That the respondents are making Gara bandi to kill the appellant and driver Raju at any time.

13. That the respondent nos. 2 3, and 4 are disobeying and flouting the order dated 17-05-2025 and are misusing the liberty of bail granted by court below, therefore, the bail of the respondents nos. 2, 3 and 4 are liable to be cancelled and they may be directed to appear before the court below and surrender to sent jail."

4. Learned counsel further submits that the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, after release from jail came to the house of the applicant and threatened the family 3 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 members including the driver to withdraw the case, therefore, the applicant is feeling danger to his life.

5. The prayer is to allow the applicant and cancel bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

6. On the issue of cancellation of bail, the Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 187, observed as under:- "11. While cancelling the bail granted to the appellants, the learned Single Judge referred to this Court's judgment in the case of Abdul Basit (supra). However, we are compelled to note that the ratio of the above judgment favours the case of the appellants. That apart, the judgment deals with the powers of the High Court to review its own order within the limited scope of Section 362 CrPC. Relevant observations from the above judgment are reproduced below: "14. Under Chapter XXXIII, Section 439(1) empowers the High Court as well as the Court of Session to direct any accused person to be released on bail. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code be arrested and committed to custody i.e., the power to cancel the bail granted to an accused person. Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (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. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Where bail has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in sixty days after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. However, in the last-mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed. (Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC 481)

15. The scope of this power to the High Court under Section 439(2) has been considered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 4 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 [(1978) 1 SCC 118]

16. In Gurcharan Singh case [(1978) 1 SCC 118] this Court has succinctly explained the provision regarding cancellation of bail under the Code, culled out the differences from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short "the old Code") and elucidated the position of law vis-à- vis powers of the courts granting and cancelling the bail. This Court observed as under: "16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly, under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position 5 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-à-vis the High Court." (emphasis supplied)

17. In this context, it is profitable to render reliance upon the decision of this Court in Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338]. In the said case, this Court held (SCC p. 345, para 11) that the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is absolutely different from cancelling an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation. In Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 13 SCC 584], the three-Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and further drawn the distinction between the two in respect of relief available in review or appeal. In this case, the High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the appellant in exercise of power under Section 439(2) of the Code. In appeal, it was contended before this Court that the High Court had erred by not appreciating the distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail. The Bench while affirming the principle laid down in Puran case [(2001) 6 SCC 338] has observed that when irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration by the court granting order of bail, the same makes the said order vulnerable and subject to scrutiny by the appellate court and that no review would lie under Section 362 of the Code. In essence, this Court has opined that if the order of grant of bail is perverse, the same can be set at naught only by the superior court and has left no room for a review by the same court.

18. Reverberating the aforesaid principle, this Court in the recent decision in Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC 797] has observed that: "19. There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the superior court."

19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from the concept of cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which require such cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions would present before us that an order granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the court superior to the court which granted the bail and not by the 6 CRLA No. 3240 of 2025 same court.

20. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of it being perverse in law. Such determination would entail eventual cancellation of bail. The circumstances brought on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being perverse in law.

21. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order granting bail cannot be reviewed by the court passing such judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the court."

7. In the present case, applicants are facing trial for offence under Section 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 352, 324(4), 118(1) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. The present status of trial is not on record.

8. It is alleged that there are violation of conditions of bail and accused /respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are threatening the applicant and his family members as also the witnesses of the case. However, considering the contents of application, referred above, as well as the law on the issue, this court finds no ground to cancel the bail for the reason that, to the view of this Court, the allegations are vague.

9. Accordingly, the application is rejected. However, learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, and in case, it is brought into notice of learned Trial Court that applicant has violated any condition of bail, learned Trial Court will be at liberty to cancel bail granted to accused. November 12, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench