Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74705 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 824 of 2023 Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Suberam S/O Lekhram Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Mullick Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. In reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of accused- opposite party, learned A.G.A. for the State has filed rejoinder affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Counsel and Shri Anil Mullick, learned counsel for the accused-opposite party. 3. The instant bail cancellation application has been moved on behalf of State for cancelling the bail granted to the accused- opposite party in Case Crime No. 445 of 2021, under Sections 395, 447, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station T. P. Nagar, District Meerut. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that while granting bail to the accused-opposite parties the learned Sessions Judge has not properly considered the evidence available on record. No agreement was made by the informant with her mother-in-law or any other person, nor any such agreement was made part of consideration. No copy of any settlement agreement was provided, but the court below has wrongly mentioned the same and has granted bail to the accused. Thus, it has been argued on behalf of State that the order granting bail to the accused-opposite party is unjustified, illegal and perverse, therefore, prayer has been made for cancelling the bail of the accused-opposite parties. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the accused. Therefore, this bail cancellation deserves to be rejected. 6. I have perused the record as well as the judgment and order granting bail to the accused-opposite parties. 7. From perusal of the contentions raised on behalf of State, it is quite clear that cancellation has been sought only on the premise that the facts and merits of the case were as such that grant of bail was not at all justified. There is no argument on behalf of State at all that the opposite parties had misused the liberty granted to them. 8. Law is settled that where the grant of bail is being challenged on the ground of gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud; in other words, the legality of the grant of bail is under challenge, such determination, though would entail cancelling of bail but such cancelling in effect is entirely different from a situation where the bail is sought to be cancelled on the ground of its misuse. 9. Legally, the Court cannot sit like an appellate court/ revisional court to review the order of the granting bail. In this case, the State has applied for cancellation of bail on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. As is quite clear from the law on this point, the bail once granted can only be cancelled where subsequent to the grant of bail, the accused has misconducted himself or has misused the liberty or protection available to him or on the ground that some new fact has surfaced having important bearing on the case, which case is not here, or where the order is arbitrary or perverse or without jurisdiction or is bad in law for some reason of like nature. 10. 10. The freedom made available by grant of bail cannot be taken away on inadequate grounds or mere assertions or allegation, the veracity whereof remains to be tested. The liberty, even though on bail is an important fundamental right, which cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law. Moreover, the grounds asserted on behalf of State were ought to have remain present before grant of bail and those facts had already been brought to the knowledge of the Sessions Judge before he finally allowed the application. 11. I do not find sufficient ground to interfere in the order granting bail to the opposite parties, and therefore this bail cancellation application is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad