SMT. MAUSAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 304 of 2025

Smt. Mausam
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Himanshu Shukla, Shiksha Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : Anil Kumar Mishra, G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
hands up the supplementary affidavit enclosing the bail bonds, which he
has furnished before the trial court. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Himanshu Shukla, learned counsel for applicant; Sri Mishra,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2; and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

3. The present bail cancellation application has been moved by the
informant-applicant Smt. Mausam to cancel the bail of opposite party no.
2 in Case Crime No. 29 of 2025, under Sections 75, 352, 351(2) of BNS
and Section 3(1) da, dha of the SC/ST Act and Section 9/10 of the
POCSO Act, P.S.- Nanauta, District- Saharanpur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the bail cancellation
application has been moved, when there was threat perception from the
opposite party no.2 that he was pressurizing the applicant not to give
evidence against him.

5. On query, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement
of informant has already been recorded. It is the contention of learned
counsel for the applicant that in paragraph 17 of the bail cancellation
application the only ground taken is that the accused opposite party no.2
is continuously mounting pressure on the applicant to get compromise in
the instant matter. It is also submitted that the applicant has moved an
application to Senior Superintendent of Police on 31.05.2025. It is further
                                                        BAILC No. 304 of 2025
                               2


submitted that as of now there is no threat perception, as disclosed in the
application. The trial is still continuing. The statement of other witnesses
of fact is to be recorded.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the false F.I.R.
has been lodged by the informant against the accused opposite party no.2,
as there was dispute between the parties, as the opposite party no.2 has
stopped the mother-in-law of the applicant not to harvest chari from his
field. It is thereafter, that the case of POCSO has been invoked against the
opposite party no.2, who has falsely been implicated. He is enlarged on
bail and never ever pressurized either the applicant or any of the family
member for compromise as the opposite party no.2 is contesting the trial
and regularly appearing before the trial court. The statement of the
applicant has been recorded before the trial court, rendering the
application infructuous. As such, he seeks that the application be
dismissed as infructuous.

7. Considered the rival submission made by the parties and perused the
record.

8. The principles governing the bail cancellation under the provisions of
Section 439(2) of CrPC (Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023) couched in same
language, "A High Court or court of Session may direct any person who
has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and commit him
to custody.", does not explain what is to be considered while committing
an accused to custody, who was released on bail, for which the judgments
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are having guiding force. In this context
following judgments are quoted:-

State Through Delhi Administration Vs. Sanjay Gandhi reported in
(1978) 2 SCC 411, wherein Hon'ble The Supreme Court has held that
tampering with witnesses constitute a cogent ground for cancellation of
bail. The opportunity of being on bail cannot be permitted to be abused
for the purpose of thwarting the course of justice. Subsequently, in the
case of Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1986) 4 SCC
481, wherein Hon'ble The Supreme Court particularly in paragraph 25 has
held that intimidation of witnesses is sufficient to revoke the liberty
granted. It must be guided by lodestar of preventing interference with
                                                                                             BAILC No. 304 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    witnesses that it strikes at the root of rule of law. In the case of P. Vs.
                                    State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 15 SCC 211, Hon'ble The
                                    Supreme Court has held that the grant of bail is always conditional and
                                    may be subject to cancellation, if after the grant of the same there is any
                                    supervening circumstances that impedes fair trial. Hon'ble The Supreme
                                    Court has also considered that the law is well settled for consideration of
                                    grant of bail and cancellation thereafter, which are entirely different.
                                    While considering this aspect Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of
                                    Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2024) 4
                                    SCC 222, has held that the bail granted to an accused can only be
                                    canceled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the
                                    accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions
                                    of the bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory
                                    provisions restricting the powers of Court to grant bail; and (d) that the
                                    bail order was procured by misrepresentation or fraud.

                                    9. Considering that the only ground on which, the bail cancellation
                                    application has been moved is that the accused/ opposite party no.2 is
                                    mounting pressure on the applicant to enter into compromise. There is
                                    nothing on record except an application to S.S.P. Saharanpur that the
                                    accused-applicant was pressurizing the applicant for compromise. It is a
                                    bald and vague allegation without any specific details. Moreover, the
                                    deposition of the applicant, has been recorded.

                                    10. Hence, the application for bail cancellation is dismissed.



                                                                                            (Avnish Saxena,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Shivangi




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad