Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136715 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 216 of 2022 Applicant :- Bablu Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vishal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail cancellation application has been filed to set- aside the bail order dated 30.03.2022 granted to opposite party no. 2 - Udai Pratap Jaiswal and opposite party no. 3- Smt. Sudha Jaiswal with regard to Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Sections 306, 498A I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ghazipur by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Ghazipur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that opposite party nos.2 and 3 are threatening the witnesses and the informant as they have sent one Sitaram and other persons repeatedly to the house of the applicant to settle the matter by taking Rs.20 lacs. 5. Learned counsel has further argued that the trial is moving at snail's pace as the investigation is complete and discharge application moved by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is pending, as such the order dated 30.03.2022 granting bail to opposite party no. 2 and 3 may be set-aside. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that the criminal history has not been properly explained as it has been mentioned at one place that there is no criminal history of the applicant but it is mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the court concerned that Case Crime No.175 of 2020 and 497 of 2020 were instituted against him and by the order of the High Court, children were living with the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has stated that the said criminal history has been mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the impugned order dated 30.03.2022. The allegations are vague. There is an endeavour of the applicant to keep opposite party nos.2 and 3 behind the bars. The investigation is complete and discharge application is pending. The delay, if any, cannot be attributed to opposite party nos.2 and 3. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court declines to entertain this bail cancellation application. The application is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad