HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 118 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri R.B.S. Rathaur, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By means of the instant application the applicant is seeking cancellation of the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8707/2025 whereby this Court had granted bail to the opposite party no. 2 in Case Crime No. 30/2025, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda. 3. The ground for seeking cancellation of the aforesaid bail order is firstly that the opposite party no. 2 had concealed two criminal cases against him and secondly it is wrongly recorded in the order dated 12.09.2025 that co- accused Chandan Dixit has been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 704/2025 whereas the said anticipatory bail application has been rejected. 4. Regarding involvement of the opposite party no. 2 in two cases mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, the learned counsel for the applicant could not inform the court as to whether any notice/ summon/ warrant regarding the said two Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Verma, R.B.S. Rathaur Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) cases has been served on the opposite party no. 2. As there is nothing on record to indicate that the opposite party no. 2 had knowledge of the two cases mentioned in paragraph-6 or, in any case, the person doing pairvi on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, who had filed affidavit in support of the bail application, had knowledge of the two cases, the opposite party no. 2 cannot be blamed for concealment of facts. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that it is wrongly recorded in the order dated 12.09.2025 that Chandan Dixit has been granted anticipatory bail by means of the order dated 07.07.2025 whereas his application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by means of an order dated 07.07.2025, is correct but that was not the sole consideration for enlargement of the opposite party no. 2 on bail. This Court has recorded that the FIR essentially alleges investment made under an agreement between the complainant and Chandan Dixit and non-return of benefits under the agreement, which essentially appears to be a civil dispute. It is not disputed that another co-accused Harveer Singh has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Bail No. 7628/2025. 6. The aforesaid considerations make out good ground for enlargement of the opposite party no. 2 on bail. 7. There appears to be no good ground for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2. 8. The bail cancellation application is accordingly rejected. November 3, 2025 Pradeep/- BAILC No. 118 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench