HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 87 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel who appears for the accused respondent. 2. An application has been filed seeking cancellation of the bail granted to accused respondent vide order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the In-charge, District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri pertaining to Case crime no.245 of 2024 under section 302 IPC read with section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri. 3. While granting the bail, the trial court had observed in paragraph six the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased on account of the alleged incident caused by the applicant. In paragraph seven, the court has recorded the reasoning to the effect that, in the FIR, it was stated that on account of a small altercation, the offense in question was committed. The court also recorded that the recovery of the weapon was not in the presence of any independent witnesses. The court also recorded the argument of the accused that on the date of the incident, the Holi festival was being celebrated and faces were sprayed with colours, and therefore there was no occasion to identify. It was also stated that the informant was not the eyewitness to the incident. 4. In light of the said observations, the counsel for the applicant argues that the observations recorded by the trial court are unjustified inasmuch Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivam Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Awasthi Dharmendra Kumar Bajpai .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) as the informant had specifically stated in the FIR that the incident had taken place and thus, it could not have been said that he was not the eyewitness to the incident. It is further argued that in a serious offense, bail has been granted within three months of the alleged incident; thus, the bail deserves to be cancelled. 5. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie the trial court was swayed by the fact that a minor altercation had taken place, which was the reason for the alleged commission of the offense, the court also noticed that the recovery of the weapon was not in the presence of independent witnesses. The said considerations are in the realm of discretion conferred upon the bail court. 6. No material has been placed to suggest that after the bail was granted, there was any misuse of the same. In view thereof, no good ground for cancellation of bail is made out. 7. The bail cancellation application is rejected. November 11, 2025 VNP/- BAILC No. 87 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench