Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142478 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 187 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramnaresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastav,Dharnidhar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail cancellation application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party No.2 by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21466 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party No.2 has not complied with the conditions mentioned in the bail order dated 31.05.2024. It is further argued that the opposite party No.2 and his family members had threatened the applicant and other family members and had assaulted them. Upon a complaint made by the applicant, the trial court had summoned the accused Alok, Devendra and Trilokinath vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed in complaint case No. 4633 of 2024 and subsequent to it, another FIR was instituted against family members of opposite party No.2 on 01.04.2025 having FIR No. 54 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2) BNS. It is further argued that subsequent to filing of instant bail cancellation application, another FIR has been instituted against opposite party no.2 having FIR No. 91 of 2025 under Sections 324(2), 309(4), 351(3), 352, 333, 109 BNS, as such, bail granted to opposite party No.2 is liable to be cancelled. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has vehemently opposed the bail cancellation application on the ground that there was a cross version to the case and FIR was also instituted by the opposite party No.2 against the applicant which was registered as FIR No. 53 of 2025 regarding incident dated 31.03.2025. It is further argued that the second FIR mentioned is an attempt by the applicant to make it a cross case to the said FIR instituted from the side of the opposite party No.2 against the applicant and others, as such, bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected as the parties had previous animosity with each other and there are several FIRs between the parties. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there are FIR instituted by both the parties against each other and injury being sustained by both the parties in the case in which the opposite party No.2 was granted bail, I do not find it a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party No.2. 8. The bail cancellation application is found devoid of merits and 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 as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. 10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad