Allahabad High Court
VED PRAKASH SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and the earlier bail order remains in force.
Summary
The applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused (opposite party No.2) on the ground that the accused misused the bail by threatening the applicant, who is a key witness, and that an FIR had been filed against the accused and his wife. The accused contended that the FIR lacked medical corroboration and was filed with ulterior motives to revoke his bail. The court examined the material on record and noted the absence of any medical evidence or other substantive grounds to set aside the bail. It concluded that the allegations did not satisfy the criteria for bail cancellation. Consequently, the bail cancellation application was dismissed, leaving the original bail order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be cancelled on the basis of alleged misuse and intimidation of a witness.
- Whether the lack of medical corroboration in the FIR is sufficient to set aside an existing bail order.
- Whether the bail cancellation application is maintainable in the absence of cogent evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail cancellation
- witness intimidation
- lack of medical evidence
- Criminal Procedure
- bail order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 103 of 2026
Ved Prakash Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Dev Dwivedee, Indrajeet Kumar
Shukla, Kaushal Mishra, Vinaya Kumar
Diwvadi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nafees Ahmad
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 69 out of 131)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Kaushal Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Nafees
Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28636 of 2025, arising out of
Case Crime No.0067 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police
Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that opposite party no. has
misused the bail granted to him earlier on. He threatened the applicant to
face dire consequences, as he is the main witness in the incident. There is
FIR No. 238 of 2025 instituted against opposite party no.2 and his wife
Shaili Tyagi, as such, the bail granted to opposite party no.2 vide order dated
13.10.2025 is liable to be set-aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the bail
cancellation application on the ground that there is no medical corroboration
of the allegations made in the FIR.The said FIR has only been instituted with
an ulterior motive to somehow get the bail granted to the opposite party no.
BAILC No. 103 of 2026
2
2 cancelled.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further stated that the only
purpose of the applicant herein is to keep opposite party no.2 behind bar.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and there is no
other cogent ground to set-aside the bail granted to opposite party no.2, I do
not find it a fit case for setting-aside the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by
this Court.
8. The present bail cancellation application is hereby found devoid of merits
and is accordingly rejected.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 21, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…