HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 304 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 hands up the supplementary affidavit enclosing the bail bonds, which he has furnished before the trial court. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for applicant; Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2; and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail cancellation application has been moved by the informant-applicant Smt. Mausam to cancel the bail of opposite party no. 2 in Case Crime No. 29 of 2025, under Sections 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1) da, dha of the SC/ST Act and Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act, P.S.- Nanauta, District- Saharanpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail cancellation application has been moved, when there was threat perception from the opposite party no.2 that he was pressurizing the applicant not to give evidence against him. 5. On query, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement of informant has already been recorded. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that in paragraph 17 of the bail cancellation application the only ground taken is that the accused opposite party no.2 is continuously mounting pressure on the applicant to get compromise in the instant matter. It is also submitted that the applicant has moved an application to Senior Superintendent of Police on 31.05.2025. It is further Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Shukla, Shiksha Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra, G.A. Smt. Mausam .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that as of now there is no threat perception, as disclosed in the application. The trial is still continuing. The statement of other witnesses of fact is to be recorded. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the false F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant against the accused opposite party no.2, as there was dispute between the parties, as the opposite party no.2 has stopped the mother-in-law of the applicant not to harvest chari from his field. It is thereafter, that the case of POCSO has been invoked against the opposite party no.2, who has falsely been implicated. He is enlarged on bail and never ever pressurized either the applicant or any of the family member for compromise as the opposite party no.2 is contesting the trial and regularly appearing before the trial court. The statement of the applicant has been recorded before the trial court, rendering the application infructuous. As such, he seeks that the application be dismissed as infructuous. 7. Considered the rival submission made by the parties and perused the record. 8. The principles governing the bail cancellation under the provisions of Section 439(2) of CrPC (Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023) couched in same language, "A High Court or court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.", does not explain what is to be considered while committing an accused to custody, who was released on bail, for which the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are having guiding force. In this context following judgments are quoted:- State Through Delhi Administration Vs. Sanjay Gandhi reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411, wherein Hon'ble The Supreme Court has held that tampering with witnesses constitute a cogent ground for cancellation of bail. The opportunity of being on bail cannot be permitted to be abused for the purpose of thwarting the course of justice. Subsequently, in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, wherein Hon'ble The Supreme Court particularly in paragraph 25 has held that intimidation of witnesses is sufficient to revoke the liberty granted. It must be guided by lodestar of preventing interference with BAILC No. 304 of 2025 2 witnesses that it strikes at the root of rule of law. In the case of P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 15 SCC 211, Hon'ble The Supreme Court has held that the grant of bail is always conditional and may be subject to cancellation, if after the grant of the same there is any supervening circumstances that impedes fair trial. Hon'ble The Supreme Court has also considered that the law is well settled for consideration of grant of bail and cancellation thereafter, which are entirely different. While considering this aspect Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222, has held that the bail granted to an accused can only be canceled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of the bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of Court to grant bail; and (d) that the bail order was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. 9. Considering that the only ground on which, the bail cancellation application has been moved is that the accused/ opposite party no.2 is mounting pressure on the applicant to enter into compromise. There is nothing on record except an application to S.S.P. Saharanpur that the accused-applicant was pressurizing the applicant for compromise. It is a bald and vague allegation without any specific details. Moreover, the deposition of the applicant, has been recorded. 10. Hence, the application for bail cancellation is dismissed. September 11, 2026 Shivangi BAILC No. 304 of 2025 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad