HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Cancellation Application No. 04 of 2025 Mohd. Hasan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent no.2/accused. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The respondent no.2/accused was granted bail in Case Crime No.332 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 341, 506 IPC, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, by this Court on 08.04.2024 in BA1 No.332 of 2024. Now, the applicant seeks cancellation of order dated 08.04.2024, passed in the Bail Application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Objections have been filed by the respondent no.2/accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the applicant was granted bail, the child witness was nowhere in the picture; it is the case of killing of a Doctor in his own house by his wife and the applicant; the child was witness to the incident, who has not been examined till the bail was granted. Now he has been examined in the court. He has stated about the role of the applicant. Hence, it is a case for cancellation of bail. 2 5. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the child witness was not a chargesheeted witness; merely because he has supported the prosecution case, it may not be ground for cancellation of bail; there is no subsequent event; the conduct of the applicant has not been assigned, which may lead to cancellation of the bail granted to him. 6. Bail once granted may not be cancelled on mere asking. Various factors are to be considered while cancelling a bail. 7. It is not the case that the accused has violated any condition of bail, or his conduct is as such, which may warrant cancellation of bail granted to him. What is being stated is that the child witness, PW4, had not been examined when the accused was granted bail, and since now PW4 has been examined, who has supported the prosecution case, the bail may be cancelled 7. This may not be a ground for cancellation of bail. 8. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail cancellation application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.06.2026 Ravi Bisht