Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 166935 (ALL)

SHYAM PRASAD MAURYA v. THE STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME AND 3 OTHERS

BAILC/107/2025 · 2025-09-25

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 107 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Parashu Ram Kanaujia, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application the applicant is seeking cancellation of order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 5457/2025 'Mukesh Kumar v. State & Ors.', whereby the opposite party no. 4 has been ordered to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 138/2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 109 BNS and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station BBD, District Lucknow. 3. Cancellation of bail order has been sought on the ground that the opposite party no. 4 is pressurizing the applicant for entering into a settlement in the matter. A copy of the application dated 13.09.2025 sent by the applicant to the Station House Officer, Police Station BBD, Lucknow has been annexed with the bail cancellation application wherein it has been stated that after being released on bail, the opposite party no. 4 is pressuring the informant and his family members for entering into a settlement and he has threatened that as he serves in Police Department he Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Parashu Ram Kanaujia, Dilip Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Shyam Prasad Maurya .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) would entangle the informant and his family members in false cases unless they enter into a settlement. 4. The aforesaid complaint does not contain any reference of any specific act committed by the opposite party no. 4 and the allegation are vague and there is no material to substantiate the allegation. 5. The vague allegations of putting pressure to enter into a settlement do not make out a case for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 4. 6. Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail is accordingly rejected. September 25, 2025 Pradeep/- BAILC No. 107 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench