Allahabad High Court
NEM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The bail cancellation application is dismissed as it lacks the requisite overwhelming and cogent reasons to set aside the previously granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Nem Singh, who is the informant in a murder case, filed an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused (Opposite Party No. 2) during the pendency of trial. The applicant argued that the accused had pointed out the deceased's mobile phone and the weapon used, indicating a serious offence, and that the bail order was therefore illegal. The State opposed the application, contending that the bail had been lawfully granted after a detailed order dated 27‑07‑2026. The Court examined the bail order and held that it was well‑reasoned and that the applicant had not shown any overwhelming or cogent reasons required to set aside a bail already granted. It reiterated that while bail can be easily denied, cancelling it demands strong justification, which was absent here. Consequently, the bail cancellation application was dismissed, leaving the bail order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail granted to the accused in a murder case can be cancelled on the basis of recovered evidence and seriousness of the offence.
- Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds under the Criminal Procedure Code to justify cancellation of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1), 238, 61(2)(A)
Subjects
- bail
- bail cancellation
- murder
- Criminal Procedure Code
- high court
- informant
- evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 325
of 2026
Nem Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran
Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed to cancel the bail order of the
opposite party no. 2 in Case Crime No. 12 of 2026, under Sections 103(1),
238, 61(2)(A) BNS, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah during
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the informant
of the case and he filed the instant bail cancellation application to cancel the
bail granted by court concerned to opposite party no. 2.
4. She further submitted that it is a case of murder and on the pointing out of
the opposite party no. 2, mobile phone of the deceased and weapon used in
the crime were also recovered but in spite of that court concerned granted
bail to him and thus committed gross illegality.
5. She further submitted that therefore, bail granted to opposite party no. 2
be cancelled.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for cancellation of bail and
submitted that however on the pointing out of the O.P. No. 2 during
investigation mobile phone of the deceased and weapon used in the crime
were allegedly recovered but with a detailed order dated 27.7.2026 opposite
party no. 2 was enlarged on bail by the court concerned and therefore,
instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit and it should be
BAILC No. 325 of 2026
2
dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
8. Applicant is informant of the case and he filed instant bail cancellation
application with a prayer to cancel the bail granted by court concerned to
opposite party no. 2 on the ground that it is a case of murder and during
investigation on the pointing out of O.P. No. 2 mobile phone of the deceased
and even weapon used in the crime was also recovered but in spite of that
court concerned granted bail to him.
9. From the bail granting order dated 27.7.2026 it reflects, it is well reasoned
order and in view of this Court, no interference is required.
10. Law is settled that it is easy to reject a bail application but it is very
difficult to cancel the bail already granted to the accused and for cancellation
of bail very overwhelming and cogent reasons are necessary which is
completely missing in the present matter.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, instant bail cancellation application is devoid of merit
and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the instant bail cancellation application stands dismissed.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during
trial.
September 17, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…