Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33021 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 104 of 2025 Applicant :- Bharatpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned brief holder for the State. 2. The instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-informant with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 618 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a bail cancellation application and applicant is the informant of the case. He further submits that without considering the evidence on record, court concerned granted bail to opposite party No.2. He further submits that there was evidence against opposite party No.2 that on her call deceased had gone from his home and thereafter she was witnessed near the place of incident while she was having a wooden stick, but, in spite of that, opposite party No.2 has been released on bail by the court concerned, therefore, bail granted to her should be cancelled. 4. Learned A.G.A., however, also submitted that on the phone call of opposite party No.2, deceased had gone from his home and she was also last seen near the place of incident, but, he fairly conceded except the above evidences, there is no other evidence against opposite party No.2 on record. He further could not dispute the fact that all these facts have been properly considered by the court concerned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. This is a bail cancellation application with a prayer to cancel the bail of opposite party No.2 granted by the court concerned on the ground that court concerned while granting bail to opposite party No.2 failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, but, from the bail granting order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge concerned, it reflects that while granting bail, he discussed the facts of the case in detail. 7. Further, from the record it also reflects that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and following two circumstances are against the opposite party No.2: (a) On the phone call of the opposite party No.2, deceased left his home and, (b) Opposite party No.2 was last seen near the place of incident while she was having a wooden stick. 8. Except the above circumstances, there are no other circumstances against the opposite party No.2 on record. 9. This Court is of the view that merely on the basis of above circumstances, at this stage, it is hard to believe that opposite party No.2 committed the murder of the deceased and considering this fact, I do not find any illegality in the bail granting order dated 09.01.2025. 10. Further, law is settled that it is easy to reject a bail application while it is more difficult to cancel a bail already granted and for cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming reasons are necessary, which, in view of this Court, are totally missing in the present case. Further, opposite party No.2 is a lady and she is not having criminal history. 11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Karan Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad