Allahabad High Court
DILIP KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of uncorroborated threats; appropriate police protection suffices.
Summary
Dilip Kumar filed an application to cancel the bail of four accused (Kuldeep Yadav, Ratan Singh @ Suneel Yadav, Chintamani and Vikas Yadav) alleging that they were threatening him to prevent his deposition before the trial court, and he had lodged two FIRs against them. The accused argued that the allegations were speculative, unsupported by any medical or injury report, and that the application was an attempt to incarcerate them. The Court examined whether the revocation of bail requires a high standard of proof and whether the mere registration of FIRs without corroborative material suffices for cancellation. It held that the required standard was not satisfied and that the applicant's safety concerns could be addressed by police protection rather than cancelling bail. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application was dismissed, with directions for the police to provide adequate security and for the trial court to expedite the deposition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail granted to the accused can be cancelled on the basis of alleged threats and subsequent FIRs without corroborative evidence.
- Whether the applicant's safety concerns can be adequately addressed by police protection instead of revoking bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail cancellation
- threat to witness
- police protection
- criminal procedure
- standard of proof
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 235
of 2026
Dilip Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhiraj Singh, Praveen Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A., Nitin
Sharma, Phool Singh Yadav, Uttam
Kumar
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 201 out of 208)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Heard Sri Anubhav Mishra, Advocate holding brief
of Sri Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Phool Singh
Yadav, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 4 & 5 and Sri Nitin Sharma,
learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 6 & 7 and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law
Officer.
2. The present bail cancellation application has been filed to set-aside the
orders dated 11.09.2025, 27.08.2025, 25.08.2025 and 02.12.2025 passed by
this Court granting bail to the O.P. Nos. 4 to 7, namely, Kuldeep Yadav,
Ratan Singh @ Suneel Yadav, Chintamani and Vikas Yadav with regard
to Case Crime No.239 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352,
109(1), 115(2), 324(2), 351(3), 103(1) of BNS, Police Station- Utraon,
District- Prayagraj, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30224 of
2025, 25264 of 2025, 25432 of 2025 and 40376 of 2025, respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party nos. 4 to
7 are actively preventing the applicant from deposing before the trial court
by issuing regular threats. It is urged that the applicant has already instituted
two distinct criminal complaints against them, i.e. FIR Nos. 06 of 2026 and
101 of 2026, in respect of these subsequent actions. On these grounds, it is
contended that the opposite party nos. 4 to 7 have flagrantly misused the
liberty of bail granted to them, rendering the same liable to be cancelled. It is
further submitted that any legitimate apprehension in the mind of the
BAILC No. 235 of 2026
2
applicant regarding his safety can be adequately redressed by directing the
local police to provide him with security on the dates fixed for his deposition
before the trial court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 7 submits that the
allegations leveled against the said opposite parties are entirely baseless and
speculative. It is contended that no medical or injury report exists on record
to corroborate the alleged occurrences, and the instant application is merely
an attempt by the applicant to secure the incarceration of opposite party nos.
4 to 7 on one pretext or another. Consequently, it is argued that the
application lacks merit and is liable to be rejected.
5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into
consideration that the rejection of liberty requires a very high standard of
proof which is not satisfied by the mere registration of subsequent FIRs
without corroborative material, yet the security concerns of the applicant can
be balanced by a protective directive, this Court is of the opinion that a case
for cancellation of bail is not made out.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail cancellation application is hereby dismissed.
7. However, taking into account the assertion that the applicant faces regular
threats regarding his deposition, the Senior Superintendent of Police /
Superintendent of Police concerned is directed to ensure that adequate
security and protection are provided to the applicant on the dates fixed for
recording his statement before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is also
directed to expedite the recording of the applicant's deposition without
allowing any unnecessary adjournments to either side.
September 23, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…