HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 554 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the relevant record. 2. As per office report dated 03.04.2025, notice has already been served personally on opposite party no.2. 3. The instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant (complainant) with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by the court concerned in Case Crime No. 143 of 2021, under Sections 452, 354(B), 307, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Police Station Rorawar, District Aligarh. 4. Tersely, as per prosecution story, on 03.12.2021, accused-Shamshad and co-accused Raju along with two other persons have entered in room of the applicant/informant and committed threat that she should vacant the possession from the house in question when the protest was made by the applicant, then Shamshad pressed her neck with the intention of killing which block her breathing and made her fall down, and when her daughter named Rukshana came there, then Shamshad tear the clothes of the Rukshana and after raising the noise, they escaped from the place of incident. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/informant submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found enough material to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, Syed Abid Ali Naqvi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Smt Pappi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceed against the accused/opposite party no.2, and filed charge-sheet in Case Crime No.143 of 2021, under Sections 452, 354(B), 307, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) on 06.04.2022. He further submits that opposite party no.2 had simply stated in paragraph 15 of the bail application that he is on bail in Case Crime No.380 of 1999, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh, whereas the opposite party no.2 is convicted for life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No.380 of 1999, under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C. and he has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2093 of 2001. He further submits that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/POCSO, Court No.1, Aligarh without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case as also the deliberate misuse of the process of law, not noticing the effect of the criminal history of the opposite party no.2, wrongly granted bail to the opposite party no.2 on wrong and irrelevant considerations and allowed the Bail Application No.2122 of 2024 (Shamshad and another Vs. State of U.P.) vide impugned order dated 3.9.2024. He further submits that the bail application has been submitted before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/POCSO, Court No.1, Aligarh by the accused-Shamshad on the false grounds. He further submits that the relevant facts has not been disclosed by the accused Shamshad, hence, the bail granted by the trial court dated 03.09.2024 is liable to be cancelled. 6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the above arguments regarding the bail cancellation. 7. The first information report was registered under Sections 452, 354(B), 307 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. The applicant/informant Smt. Pappi has filed the bail cancellation application and notice has been sent to the opposite party no.2/accused Shamshad. The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh dated 20.03.2025 is available, from perusal of the report, it appears that notice was personally served upon the opposite party no.2/Shamshad, but none turned up to oppose the bail cancellation application. The opportunity of hearing has already been provided by the court concerned/trial court to the informant/complainant Smt.Pappi. Applicant-Smt Pappi also appeared before the trial court to oppose the bail application and she submitted the affidavit, the attested copy of the BAILC No. 554 of 2024 2 affidavit is also available on record in which the fact has been mentioned. 8. From the perusal of the first information report, it appears that Smt. Pappi has lodged Case Crime No.143 of 2021 against the accused Shamshad, Javed and two other unknown persons under Sections 452, 307, 354(B) I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. During the course of proceeding, the accused Shamshad filed a bail application before the court concerned. In para 15 of the bail application, the fact has been clearly mentioned therein that the accused-applicant Shamshad is on bail in Case Crime No.380/1999, Police Station Delhi Gate and in other case, final report has been submitted and no other criminal case has been registered in any Police Station before that accused. In the bail application, the fact that the accused has no criminal history, has not been mentioned therein. Thus, on the basis of evidence available on record, facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, in this regard before the concerned Additional District and Sessions Judge/POCSO, Court No.1, Aligarh, the bail application of the accused was granted conditionally. 9. The objection filed by the informant Pappi against the bail application, regarding Crime No.380/1999, the fact has been mentioned in para 8 of the affidavit of informant Pappi that accused Shamshad was previously life convicted in Case Crime No.380/2000 (State v. Majid), under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Dehli Gate, District Aligarh, it appears that Crime No.380/2000 has been mentioned wrongly instead of Case Crime No.380/1999. During the course of argument before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has not argued in this regard that Case Crime No.380/2000 is another case in which the accused-Shamshad is life convicted. 10. Cancellation of bail is an order, which interferes with the liberty of the individual. Hence, it must not be lightly resorted to. It stands on a footing these scenarios are also different. In a plethora of decisions, the Supreme Court has identified and listed out a list of circumstances in the nature of being supervening circumstances, which could warrant an order from the court leading to cancellation of bail. The list in the words of the court itself is illustrative and not exhaustive. The Supreme Court to illustrate the same in the case of Abdul Basit alias Raju & others v. Md. Abdul Kadir BAILC No. 554 of 2024 3 Choudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754. The Hon'ble Supreme Court illustrate the grounds of cancellation of the bail which are as follows (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. 11. Thus, in cancellation of bail, the Court has ample power to exercise enough discretion. But no guidelines is given by the statute as to when and how it is to be exercised. However, the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled when the person on bail commits the very same offence, hampers the investigation, tampers with the evidence, runs away to a foreign country, goes underground/beyond the control of his sureties or commits any act of violence against the police/witnesses. In such cases, the High Court/Court of session can direct any person released on bail be arrested. Nevertheless, the power is to be cautiously used in due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the cancellation of bail application should be based upon the principle that whether the accused is fleeing from justice or tempering with the evidences/witnesses or he has violated the bail conditions. 12. Bail granted once should not be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner. Very cogent reasons are necessary for cancelling the bail already granted. The absence of any post-release misconduct is a compelling reason to reject an application for cancellation of bail. While considering the bail cancellation application, the question of enough liberty of the accused is to be put in juxtaposition with a societal concerned in the crime at hand, the letter desertion priority over the over-more. 13. The reason for cancelling bail and the grounds for rejecting bail are distinct circumstances, each requiring a different approach. When considering a bail application, the court focuses on the potential breach of bail conditions and must maintain an open and flexible stance. In contrast, when assessing a bail cancellation application, the court adopts a more BAILC No. 554 of 2024 4 stringent approach, examining not only the possibility of violations but also whether actual violations have occurred. In this context, the court demands concrete evidence or wrongdoing. 14. In this case, at hand, the applicant/informant has not adduced reliable and cogent materials/facts regarding the cancellation of bail, whereas the burden lies upon the applicant/informant that the accused Shamshad has violated bail conditions, therefore, on the basis of supervening circumstances, bail granted in favour of accused should be cancelled. 15. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a 'prima facie' case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 16. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellant Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail as held in the cases of Puran v. Ram Bilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 and Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and another, (2008) 13 SCC 584. 17. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. BAILC No. 554 of 2024 5 On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. 18. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, it has been held in 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 bail 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.” 19. It is well settled that the consideration applicable for cancellation of bail and consideration for challenging the order of grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion are different. While considering the application for cancellation of bail, the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances like; tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, the accused is likely to abscond and the trial of the case getting delayed on that count etc. Whereas, in an order challenging the grant of bail on the ground that it has been granted illegally, the consideration is whether there was improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in grant of bail. 20. From perusal of the bail order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/POCSO, Court No.01, Aligarh, the fact that accused-Shamshad was involved in Case Crime No.380 of 1999, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C. and no other case was registered BAILC No. 554 of 2024 6 against the accused applicant, in spite of the fact that the informant was provided reasonable opportunity to bail application and after providing opportunity of hearing, the bail application was decided on merits on the basis of evidence available on record and facts and circumstances in totality, it is an admitted fact that accused-applicant has not stated in the bail application that he is not life convicted, but he stated specifically that in Case Crime No.380/1999, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh, he is on bail, this fact which has been mentioned in para 15 of the bail application is correct. This fact was also admitted by learned counsel for the informant before this Court during the course of argument. No any kind of reasonable evidence on specific supervening circumstances has been shown by the applicant so that the bail cancellation application may be allowed. 21. Thus, in the light of submissions made by both the parties, grounds as mentioned in the bail cancellation application, paucity of cogent & reliable material regarding violation of bail conditions and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that bail cancellation application has no merits, hence, liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is dismissed. September 11, 2025 A.N. Mishra BAILC No. 554 of 2024 7 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad