HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 108 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Harshit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Yatindra Agnihotri, learned A.G.A. 2. This application has been filed to cancel the bail granted to respondent no. 2 vide order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Shravasti in Bail Application No. 437 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of daughter of the applicant was solemnized with the private respondent 10 years ago from the date of incident. It is further submitted that she committed suicide on 02.06.2025 due to victimization of respondent no. 2. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged on 4th June, 2025 under Sections 85, 108 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. It is also submitted that respondent no. 2 was taken into custody and was sent to jail, whereafter, he applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Shravasti, which was allowed vide order dated 20.06.2025 without considering the suicide note of his daughter (deceased). Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that respondent no. 2 is now giving threat for withdrawal of the prosecution and, therefore, the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by In-charge Sessions Judge, Shravasti is liable to be set aside and respondent no. 2 may be sent to jail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Garima Singh, Harshit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Umar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another .....Opposite Party(s) of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that not even a single whisper about the suicide note has been made in the present application. Neither any date or time has been mentioned in the entire application for cancellation of bail, on which the threat was given by respondent no. 2 to the applicant for withdrawal of the prosecution case. Moreover, there is no evidence that respondent no. 2 has misused the liberty of bail granted by the Sessions Judge. It is, thus, submitted that the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application as well as the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Shravasti granting bail to the respondent no. 2, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 20.06.2025. 6. The application is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 6, 2025 VKS BAILC No. 108 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench