Smt. Shakeela Begum vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 149 of 2026
Smt. Shakeela Begum
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And
Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nandesh Verma, Preeti Shukla (Tiwari)
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nandesh Verma,
Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mayank Sinha, the
learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. By means of the instant application, the applicant is seeking cancellation of
the order dated 01.09.2026, passed by this court in Bail Application No. 13465
of 2023, whereby the opposite party no. 2 was granted bail in Case Crime No.
491 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich for the following reasons:
" 3. The first bail application bearing No.6640 of 2018
was dismissed as withdrawn by means of an order
dated 11.10.2023. However, the applicant was granted
short-term bail passed in the present case by means of
an order dated 23.01.2025 passed by a co-ordinate
bench of this Court subject to the condition that the
applicant shall sell his property within the period
prescribed and deposit the consideration amount with
the bank.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the
applicant could not do so and the interim bail granted to
him by means of the order dated 23.01.2025 has been
extended by this Court.
5. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis
of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.07.2016 against four persons,
including the applicant- Mahfooz Ali and his wife Smt.
Chanda besides one Mohammad Shafiq son of

BAILC No. 149 of 2026
2
Mohammad Hussain and Zainul Abdin son of Abdul
Raheem, alleging that the complainant had purchased
some plots of land from the applicant through various
sale deeds executed on 18.01.2013, 20.06.2014 and
01.10.2014. The land in question was recorded in the
name of the applicant in Khatauni but thereafter it
transpired that the applicant had mortgaged the land
with State Bank of India and had taken loan from the
bank.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it
has been stated that it has been stated that the
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated
in the present case.
7. The applicant's involvement in another criminal case
bearing Case Crime No.475 of 2017 registered in
Police Station Jankipuram, Lucknow for offences under
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC has been
disclosed, which has been registered on similar
allegations, in which the applicant has been enlarged
on bail by means of an order dated 23.12.2019 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Lucknow in Bail Application No.8835 of 2019.
8. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15
SCC 570 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 560, was an appeal
directed against the order passed by the Delhi High
Court whereby while granting anticipatory bail to the
appellant in a case registered against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 IPC, directed him to deposit an amount of Rs
1,00,00,000 (one crore) in fixed deposit in the name of
the complainant in any nationalised bank and to keep
the FDR with the investigating officer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court set aside the aforesaid condition
holding that:
"14. Thus, in the case on hand, fixed deposit of Rs
1,00,00,000 for a period of six months in the name of
the complainant and to keep the FDR with the
investigating officer as a condition precedent for grant
of anticipatory bail is evidently onerous and
unreasonable. It must be remembered that the court

BAILC No. 149 of 2026
3
has not even come to the conclusion whether the
allegations made are true or not which can only be
ascertained after completion of trial. Certainly, in no
words are we suggesting that the power to impose a
condition of this nature is totally excluded, even in
cases of cheating, electricity pilferage, white-collar
crimes or chit fund scams, etc.
15. The words "any condition" used in the provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power
on a court of law to impose any condition that it
chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted
as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts
permissible in the circumstance and effective in the
pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of
grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts
and circumstances of the case do not warrant such
extreme condition to be imposed."
(emphasis added)
9. In Dilip Singh v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 779 :
(2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 106, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that:
"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for realisation of
disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse
the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts
and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to
be taken into consideration, while considering an
application for bail are the nature of accusation and the
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and
the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the
complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial
or the likelihood of his abscondence; character,
behaviour and standing of the accused; and the
circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and
larger interest of the public or the State and similar
other considerations. A criminal court, exercising
jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected

BAILC No. 149 of 2026
4
to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the
complainant, and that too, without any trial."
10. Again, in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of
Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that:
"15. We have noticed over a period of time that orders
of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by
different High Courts subject to deposit of some
amount.
16. We have come across cases like the one in hand
where accused persons have gone to the extent of filing
affidavits in the form of undertaking that they would
deposit a particular amount within a particular period
and then conveniently resile from such undertakings
saying it is an onerous condition.
17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by
such undertaking, but our experience so far has been
that in many cases the accused later would not abide
and flout the undertaking. In many cases it would be
argued on behalf of the accused that he had never
made such a statement and the court on its own had
recorded in the order that the accused is ready and
willing to deposit a particular amount. At times the
entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such
statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or
anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such
circumstances, the concerned court would be left with
no other option but to cancel the bail either at the
instance of the State or the original complainant.
18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on
his own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the form
of an undertaking before the High Court that he would
deposit an amount of Rs 25,00,000 but ultimately
resiled to do so and the High Court had to cancel the
bail. It was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to
argue before the High Court that asking his client to
deposit Rs 25,00,000 was unreasonable. It reflects on
the professional ethics.
19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the

BAILC No. 149 of 2026
5
form of directions that henceforth no trial court or any of
the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular
bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the
accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of
obtaining appropriate reliefs.
20. The High Courts as well as the trial courts shall
decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail
strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and
the trial courts shall not exercise their discretion in this
regard on any undertaking or any statement that the
accused may be ready and willing to make.
21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking
the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the
dignity and honor of the court.
22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as
the trial courts across the country do not commit the
same mistake again."
11. The aforesaid judgment has been followed and
reiterated in a judgment dated 03.02.2026 passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal Diary
No.4297 of 2026 (Ranjeet Kumar & Anr. vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr.).
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, I am of the view
that no condition can be put for selling the property and
deposit of sale consideration for enlargement of the
applicant on bail.
13. The learned counsel has stated that the applicant is
present in person in the Court and he made a
statement that even charges have not been framed till
date, although the matter is pending since the year
2016."
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statement of
the learned counsel for the accused recorded in para 13 of the order dated
1.9.2026 is incorrect as the trial court has framed charges on 4.10.2024.
4. Non-framing of charges was not the sole reason for which the opposite
party no. 2 was enlarged on bail. Moreover, a copy of the order dated
4.10.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bahraich framing charges
against the accused in the case has been annexed as Annexure No. 15 to the

BAILC No. 149 of 2026
6
application and it merely states that after hearing submissions and perusing
the material the court was of the view that prima facie evidence was available
for framing charges for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Even if one of the numerous reasons mentioned in the order granting bail are
incorrect, the bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled if the order is
supported by other reasons as well.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh: (2024) 4 SCC 222 , where and it was held that:
"11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments
rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant
of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different.
Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled 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 bail order;

(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory
provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant
bail;

(d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation
or fraud.

In the present case, none of these situations existed."
6. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot
be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances. This court certainly has the inherent
powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused
even in the absence of supervening circumstances.
Following are the illustrative circumstances where the
bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account

BAILC No. 149 of 2026
7
irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial
nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the
influential position of the accused in comparison to the
victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there
is prima facie misuse of position and power over the
victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the
accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable
grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the
order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.

33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the
first place given the very serious nature of the charges
against the accused which disentitles him for bail and
thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the
given case."
7. The order dated 01.09.2026 passed by this court contains detailed reasons
and refers to the relevant law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
various judgments. To me, the order does not appear to be an unreasoned
order and it is not solely based on the consideration that charges had not been
framed by the trial court.
8. Therefore, I am of the view that even in light of the aforesaid law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case for cancellation of the order
dated 01.09.2026, passed by this court in Bail Application No. 13465 of 2023,
whereby the opposite party no. 2 was granted bail in Case Crime No. 491 of
2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Bahraich is made out. The bail cancellation application is
accordingly rejected .

October 28, 2026
Ram.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench