HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 5 of 2024 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail cancellation application has been filed for cancelling the bail granted to opposite party no.2 by the Trial Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 in Complaint Case No.924 of 2022, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi. 4. The instant bail cancellation has been moved on the ground that certain documents and the CCTV footage were not taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant had moved an application before the A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Varanasi on 29.06.2022 for taking the affidavits of the witnesses on record and also taking into consideration the CCTV footage and the medical report of the injured persons, but the Investigating Officer did not care to put the said documents and the CCTV footage on record in collusion with opposite party no.2 and the bail was granted on the ground that there was no CCTV footage on record, as such, the bail granted to opposite party no.2 vide order dated 22.11.2023 is liable to be set-aside. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Rai, G.A. Anand Prakash Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the bail application on the ground that the instant complaint case is an effort of the applicant to falsely implicate opposite party no.2 as already an FIR was instituted on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the applicant was granted bail by this Court and the police after thorough investigation had filed closure report in the instant case twice and subsequent to it on the basis of protest petition filed by the applicant, the case has been treated as a complaint case. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further stated that no case for cancelling the bail granted to opposite party no.2 is made out as he has not misused the said opportunity granted to him by the said order of Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Dolat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 9. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in State of U.P. vs. Karunakar Alias Deonath Tiwari, MANU/UP/0958/1993, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the law for grant of bail and cancellation of bail is settled. The Supreme Court in 1993 (2) EFR SC 11 : 1993 jic 14(SC), Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra observed that "it is easy to reject the bail application but it is difficult to cancel a bail granted by the Court." It has also been observed that "bail once granted by the Court, could be cancellation only if it shows that the person on bail violated the bail order and the case is covered under the provisions of Sections 436(2) and 439(2) Cr.P.C. are quoted as under: "Section 436 (2) - Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bond BAILC No. 5 of 2024 2 as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof under Section 446. Section 439 (2) - A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, I do not find it a fit case for setting- aside the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Trial Court. The present bail cancellation application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. October 6, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAILC No. 5 of 2024 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad