Allahabad High Court
ISRARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail cancellation application was dismissed as the allegations of intimidation were uncorroborated.
Summary
Israr filed an application to cancel the bail granted to Suhail in a criminal case involving sections of the BNS and the POCSO Act. The applicant alleged that Suhail was threatening him to force a settlement and had complained to the Senior Superintendent of Police. The respondent argued that no proof of such a complaint or any electronic records, such as call detail records, was produced. The court examined the allegations and found them uncorroborated by any documentary or electronic evidence. Consequently, the court held that there was no basis to cancel the bail and dismissed the bail cancellation application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be cancelled on the basis of alleged intimidation without any corroborative documentary or electronic evidence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail cancellation
- intimidation
- lack of evidence
- criminal procedure
- POCSO
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 272
of 2026
Israr
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Haya Rizvi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shazia Parveen, Vijeta Srivastava
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 203 out of 208)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Heard Sri Ahmad Farhan, Advocate holding brief of
Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shazia Parveen,
learned counsel for the opposite party and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned
AGA for the State.
2. The present bail cancellation application has been filed to set-aside the
order dated 15.04.2025 passed by this Court granting bail to the O.P. No. 2
Suhail with regard to Case Crime No.846 of 2024, under Section 70(2), 123,
127(3), 137(2), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 5(G)(L)/6 of POCSO Act,
Police Station- Baghpat, District- Baghpat, in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 6779 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no. 2 has
been threatening the applicant to force a settlement in the matter.
Consequently, the applicant has preferred an application before the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP) concerned. On these grounds, it is urged that
the opposite party no. 2 has misused the liberty granted to him, and the bail
granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the
applicant has failed to produce any proof of receipt for the alleged
representation filed before the SSP. It is further contended that no
corroborative evidence, such as Call Detail Records (CDR), has been
appended to the present application to substantiate the allegations of threats
BAILC No. 272 of 2026
2
or intimidation. As such, the instant bail cancellation application is devoid of
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 allegations of intimidation are completely
uncorroborated by any documentary evidence, receipt of complaint, or
electronic records such as CDRs, 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.
September 23, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…