Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114019 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6258 of 2024 Applicant :- Harsh Raj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Case Crime No.634 of 2023, under Sections 452, 354A, 354D, 427, 506, 376/511 IPC and Section 7/8, 18 of POCSO Act, P.S. Izzatnagar, District Bareilly. 3. In the instant matter, initially an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against the applicant on 01.10.2023, under Sections 452, 354A, 506 IPC and Section 11/12 POCSO Act alleging that the applicant and his mother entered into his house and misbehaved with his daughter and threatened to kill her if she does not marry the applicant. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was submitted under Sections 452, 354A, 354D, 427, 506, 376/511 IPC and Section 7/8, 18 of POCSO Act and the Court had issued summons. In the said proceeding, the applicant was enlarged on bail by the trial Court vide order dated 28.11.2023. Subsequently, another FIR was lodged against the applicant on 27.01.2024 by one Gaurav Manoha, Gym owner alleging that the applicant is stalking the lady (victim of earlier case) since last several months. It is after lodging of second FIR, opposite party no.2 had moved an application seeking cancellation of bail of the applicant granted in earlier case. The said bail cancellation application was allowed vide impugned order without issuing any notice or affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The said order is under challenge by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the applicant. The bail ought not to have been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. As far as notice is concerned, reason given was that the notice of the bail cancellation application was served on the applicant on 06.02.2024, however, the bail was cancelled on 05.02.2024. 5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the application stating that it seems to be a clerical mistake. He further submits that the impugned order is perfectly justified as the applicant had violated the terms of bail granting order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the pleadings, it is clear that the applicant was not served with any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing before hearing the bail cancellation application, hence, the instant application is disposed of, the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 is hereby set-aside and the Court below is directed to decide the bail cancellation filed by opposite party no.2 on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad