Hirdesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another

Reserved On:13.10.2026
Delivered On: 28.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11314 of 2025
Hirdesh Kumar
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Virendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Lavlesh Kumar Sharma
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10391 of 2025
Hirdesh Kumar …. Appellant(s)
Versus.
State of U.P. and Another ……… Respondent(s)
 
Counsel for Appellant(s) Virendra Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) ,G.A.,Lavlesh Kumar Sharma
Court No. - 74 [A.F.R.]
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. These are two appeals connected in compliance of the order dated
28.11.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Appeal Defective No.1429 of 2025, Hirdesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
another, which was subsequently numbered as Criminal Appeal
No.11314 of 2025, Hirdesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another.
2. Criminal Appeal No.11314 of 2025 has been filed by the
appellant- Hirdesh Kumar with the following prayers:-
“ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to cancel the bail order dated 09.10.2025 of the
opposite party no.2 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/

2
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Mahoba in Second Bail Application
Computer No. 791/2025 (Junaid @ Sheebu Vs. State of Plaing out of
Case Crime No. 350/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 103(1), 3(5)
B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3 (2) (5A) and 3 (2)
(5) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, Police Station Kotwali
Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba; otherwise, the applicant/appellant
shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.”
3. Criminal Appeal Defective No.1429 of 2025 was heard on
28.11.2025 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the following order
was passed:-
“ 1. Learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the
State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he has removed the defects pointed
out by the office.
3. As the defects are removed, office is directed to allot a regular number to this
appeal.
4. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 through C.J.M. concerned.
5. Learned AGA is also directed to serve the notice upon informant through
concerned Investigating Officer.
6. As prayed, connect this appeal with Criminal Appeal No. 10391 of 2025.
7. Put up this case as fresh on 15.12.2025. ”
4. Subsequently the matter was renumbered as Criminal Appeal No.
11314 of 2025. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
15.12.2025 allowed the said appeal, set aside the impugned order dated
09.10.2025 and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent no.2 (Junaid
Khan@Sheebu). He was directed to surrender before the trial court
concerned within two weeks and the following order was passed by the
said Bench:-
1. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however,
“
none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K.
Singh, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
3. Appellants/ informant have filed this appeal with a prayer to cancel the bail
order dated 09.10.2025 of the opposite party no.2 (Junaid Khan @ Sheebu)
passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act,
Mahoba in Second Bail Application Computer No. 791/2025 (Junaid @ Sheebu
Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2024, under Sections 115(2),

3
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), and 3(2) (5A) 3(1)(s),
3(2) (5) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar
Mahoba, District Mahoba; otherwise, the applicant/appellant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.
4. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted opposite party no.2 filed his first
bail application no. 793/2024 Sheebu @ Junaid vs State of U.P. before Special
Judge Sc/St Act, Mahoba and it was rejected on 25-09-2024. Aggrieved by
rejection order dated 25-09-2024,he filed bail application before this Court and
said bail application Criminal Appeal No. 10376/2024 Sheebu @ Zunaid was
rejected by a coordinate bench on 09-04-2025. Subsequently he filed second bail
application before same Court of Special Judge Sc/St. His second bail application
no.791/ 2025 Junaid Khan @ Sheebu was allowed by the Learned Subordinate
Court . Learned Trial Court, being aware that first bail application of opposite
party has already been rejected by this Court, allowed the second bail application.
Entertaining Second bail application by Subordinate Court after rejection of first
bail application amounts to gross illegality.
5. Learned AGA has also conceded that if first bail application was rejected by
this Court, it was not proper for Learned Subordinate Court to entertain the
second bail application of opposite party no.2. He submitted it is settled law that
successive bail applications shall be placed before the same Court.
6. Heard Learned Counsels and perused the records. It is apparent from records
that second bail application no.791/ 2025 Junaid Khan @ Sheebu was allowed by
the Learned Subordinate Court after first bail application of opposite party no.2
was rejected. It has been settled in catena of judgements that successive bail
applications shall be placed before the same court under changed circumstances.
Apart from it, court entertaining second bail application is also duty bound to
consider the grounds on which first bail application was rejected. Supreme Court
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr, AIR 2005 SC
921 held:-
"This Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make successive
applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail
applications has duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier
bail applications were rejected and in such cases the court also has a duty to
record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from
the one taken in the earlier applications."
7. I have carefully examined the rejection order dated 09-04-2025 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 10376/ 2024. The court,
while rejecting the bail application of the opposing party numbered -2, has
considered the available evidence, including the CCTV footage collected by the
I.O., and has concluded that the evidence is sufficient to indicate the active
involvement of the opposing party no.2.
8. The Learned Court's findings in Second Bail Application no. 791/2025 were
also reviewed. The order in the second bail application clearly shows that the
prosecution opposed it. They argued that CCTV footage, which they claimed was
material evidence, had not been collected by the I.O. Consequently, an application

4
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
for further investigation is pending for hearing before the Court. The prosecution
also requested a defer the hearing until the further investigation application is
heard. However, the Trial Court conceded the accused counsel's argument and
held that bail can only be considered if the materials are available at the time of
the hearing. It further considered that co accused has already been granted bail
and the case of the accused is on same footing.
9. The impugned order dated 9-10-2025 passed in the second bail application
clearly shows that the learned court failed to mention any reasons or grounds
considered by the coordinate bench of this court while rejecting the earlier bail
application. In such cases, the court was bound to record the fresh grounds that
led it to adopt a different stance compared to the earlier applications. However,
Trial Court not only ignored the grounds and reason assigned by Coordinate
Bench to reject the earlier bail application of opposite party no.2, but had also
committed a grave error in refusing to adjourn the hearing on request of
prosecution. If Coordinate Bench rejected the accused's earlier bail application
based on CCTV footage not collected by the I.O. during the investigation, it was
enough for the learned court to be cautious and wait for an order on that matter.
Even the grounds considered by Learned Court to grant second bail are not
convincing.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Impugned order 9.10.2025 is
set aside. The bail granted to respondent no.2- Junaid Khan is cancelled.
11. Opposite Party No. 2 (Junaid Khan @ Sheebu) is directed to surrender before
the trial court within two weeks from today. If he fails to surrender, coercive steps
will be taken against him.
”
5. Criminal Appeal No. 10391 of 2025 has been filed by the
appellant Hirdesh Kumar with the following prayers:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed no.2 that this Hon'ble
“
Court may be pleased to cancel the bail order dated 03.09.2025 of
the opposite party passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge Act, Mahoba in Second Bail Application
Computer No. 737/2025 (Arseel @ Amaan Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case (S.C./S.T.) Crime No. 350/2024, under Sections
115(2), 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2) (5A) and 3(2) (5) Police Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes Act, Station Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba;
otherwise, the applicant/appellant shall suffer irreparably.”
6. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2025
allowed the said appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2025
and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent no.2 (Arsheel@Amaan).

5
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
He was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and
the following order was passed by the said Bench:-
“ 1. As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2,
however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the
revised call.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K.
Singh, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
3. Appellants/ informant have filed this appeal with a prayer to cancel the bail
order dated 3.9.2025 of the opposite party no.2 (Arsheel @ Amaan) passed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Mahoba
in Second Bail Application Computer No.723/2025 ( Arsheel @ Amaan Vs.
State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 350/2024, under Sections 115(2),
352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(5A), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(5) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar
Mahoba, District Mahoba; otherwise, the applicant/appellant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury.
4. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted opposite party no.2 filed his
first bail application no. 937/2024 Arsheel @ Amaan vs State of U.P. before
Special Judge Sc/St Act, Mahoba and it was rejected on 07-11-2024. Aggrieved
by rejection order dated 07-11-2024, he filed bail application before this Court
and said bail application Criminal Appeal No. 11380/2024 Arsheel @ Amaan
was rejected by a coordinate bench on 09-04-2025. Subsequently he filed
second bail application before same Court of Special Judge Sc/St. His second
bail application no.723/ 2025 Arsheel @ Amaan was allowed by the Learned
Subordinate Court . Learned Trial Court, being aware that first bail application
of opposite party has already been rejected by this Court, allowed the second
bail application. Entertaining Second bail application by Subordinate Court
after rejection of first bail application amounts to gross illegality.
5. Learned AGA has also conceded that if first bail application was rejected by
this Court, it was not proper for Learned Subordinate Court to entertain the
second bail application of opposite party no.2. He submitted it is settled law
that successive bail applications shall be placed before the same Court.
6. Heard Learned Counsels and perused the records. It is apparent from records
that second bail application no.723/ 2025 Arsheel @ Amaan was allowed by the
Learned Subordinate Court after first bail application of opposite party no.2
was rejected. It has been settled in catena of judgements that successive bail
applications shall be placed before the same court under changed
circumstances. Apart from it, court entertaining second bail application is also
duty bound to consider the grounds on which first bail application was rejected.
Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav &
Anr, AIR 2005 SC 921 held:-
"This Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make
successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent

6
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
bail applications has duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the
earlier bail applications were rejected and in such cases the court also has a
duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view
different from the one taken in the earlier applications."
7. I have carefully examined the rejection order dated 09-04-2025 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11380/ 2024. The court,
while rejecting the bail application of the opposing party numbered -2, has
considered the available evidence, including the CCTV footage collected by the
I.O., and has concluded that the evidence is sufficient to indicate the active
involvement of the opposing party no.2.
8. The Learned Court's findings in Second Bail Application no. 723/2025 were
also reviewed. The order in the second bail application clearly shows that the
prosecution opposed it. They argued that CCTV footage, which they claimed
was material evidence, had not been collected by the I.O. Consequently, an
application for further investigation is pending for hearing before the Court.
The prosecution also requested a defer the hearing until the further
investigation application is heard. However, the Trial Court conceded the
accused counsel's argument and held that bail can only be considered if the
materials are available at the time of the hearing. It further considered that co
accused has already been granted bail and the case of the accused is on same
footing.
9. The impugned order dated 3.9.2025 passed in the second bail application
clearly shows that the learned court failed to mention any reasons or grounds
considered by the coordinate bench of this court while rejecting the earlier bail
application. In such cases, the court was bound to record the fresh grounds that
led it to adopt a different stance compared to the earlier applications. However,
Trial Court not only ignored the grounds and reason assigned by Coordinate
Bench to reject the earlier bail application of opposite party no.2, but had also
committed a grave error in refusing to adjourn the hearing on request of
prosecution. If Coordinate Bench rejected the accused's earlier bail application
based on CCTV footage not collected by the I.O. during the investigation, it
was enough for the learned court to be cautious and wait for an order on that
matter. Even the grounds considered by Learned Court to grant second bail are
not convincing.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Impugned order 3.9.2025 is
set aside. The bail granted to respondent no.2- Arsheel @ Amaan is cancelled.
11. Opposite Party No. 2 (Arsheel @ Amaan) is directed to surrender before the
trial court within two weeks from today. If he fails to surrender, coercive steps
will be taken against him. ”
7. The orders dated 15.12.2025 were subjected to challenge before
the Apex Court in two Special Appeals being SLP(Crl.) No.880 of 2026,
Junaid Khan@Sheebu vs. State of U.P. and another, and SLP(Crl.)
No.1123 of 2026, Arsheel @Amaan vs. State of U.P. and another. The

7
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
said appeals were allowed and disposed of vide order dated 02.4.2026,
the orders impugned therein were set aside and the matter was remanded
back to the High Court for re-consideration. The order passed therein
read as follows:-
“Leave granted.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, with reference to the impugned orders,
brought to our notice the fact that the appellants were not heard by the High
Court while passing the impugned order(s) and thereby cancelling the relief of
regular bail granted to them by the Sessions Court.
3. He submitted that the liberty of the appellants herein has been taken away in
violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the appellants were not
heard by the High Court and the relief of bail granted to them by the Sessions
Court has been cancelled. On that short ground alone, this Court may set aside
the impugned order and grant the relief of bail to the appellants herein as this
Court has already, by interim orders dated 19.01.2026 and 06.02.2026
respectively, granted interim protection to the appellants herein.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that if this
Court is inclined to hold that the appellants were not heard in the matters and
therefore they have right of being heard then this Court may remand the matters
to the High Court for a fresh consideration of Criminal Appeal No.11314/2025
and Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 which were filed by the second respondent
herein seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants herein by the
Trial Court.
5. He submitted that if this Court is to remand the matters to the High Court then
appropriate orders may be made with regard to the disposal of the Criminal
Appeal No.11314/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.10391/2025 in an expeditious
manner so that the appellants also could be heard in the matters along with the
respondent(s) herein and fresh orders could be made.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that having regard to the
facts and circumstances of these cases, appropriate orders may be made in these
appeals.
7. We find that having regard to the fact that the appellants herein were granted
the relief of bail by the Sessions Court and the same was cancelled at the
instance of the second respondent herein by the High Court without affording
any opportunity of being heard to the appellants
herein, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. On that short ground
alone, the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remanded to the High
court for reconsideration of Criminal Appeal NO.11314/2025 and Criminal
Appeal No.10391/2025 which are now restored on the file of the High Court.
8. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear
before the High Court on 20.04.2026 without expecting any separate notices
from the High Court.

8
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
9. The High Court is requested to consider these appeals filed by the second
respondent herein by affording a reasonable opportunity to all parties and to
dispose of the appeals in an expeditious manner and preferably within a period
of six weeks from today.
10. Since this Court had passed interim orders dated 19.01.2026 and 06.02.2026
in Criminal Appeal No.1710/2026 and Criminal Appeal No.1711/2026
respectively by granting interim protection to the appellants herein, the same
shall be continued till the disposal of the Criminal Appeals by the High Court.
11. These Criminal Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
8. This matters were heard by this Bench on 03.09.2026 and the
judgment was reserved. Subsequently the following order was passed by
this Bench on 05.10.2026:-
“ 1. These two criminal appeals are connected together in compliance of the
order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Defective No. 1429 of 2025,
Hirdesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another, which was subsequently numbered
as Criminal Appeal No. 11314 of 2025, Hirdesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
another, and are of co-accused on similar grounds and thus have been taken up
together and heard.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ajay Singh,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate, assisted
by Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
perused the records.
3. Although these matters were heard by this Bench and judgement was reserved
vide order dated 03.09.2026 but at the time of dictation of the judgement it
transpired that neither this matter is nominated to this Bench nor there is any
office report regarding the fact as to why these matters are listed before this
Bench even in spite of it being decided earlier by another Bench of this Court
which is still available.
4. In these circumstances, let both the matters be placed before Hon'ble The
Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders with regards to the said issue as
stated above and nominating these matters.
5. Office to place these matters before Hon'ble The Chief Justice forthwith. The
matters be then listed before the concerned Bench, if possible, on 13.10.2026.
”
9. The matters were then placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice by
the office through its report dated 06.10.2026 and vide order dated
12.10.2026 this Bench was nominated to hear the matters by orders of
Hon’ble The Chief Justice. The matters were then heard by this Bench

9
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
again on 13.10.2026 and judgment was reserved. The said order reads as
under:-
“ 1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant(s), Sri Devendra
Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State, Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
3. On 05.10.2026 the following order was passed by this Bench:-
"1. These two criminal appeals are connected together in compliance of the order
dated 28.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Defective No. 1429 of 2025, Hirdesh
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another, which was subsequently numbered as
Criminal Appeal No. 11314 of 2025, Hirdesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another,
and are of co-accused on similar grounds and thus have been taken up together
and heard.
2. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ajay Singh,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate, assisted
by Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
perused the records.
3. Although these matters were heard by this Bench and judgement was reserved
vide order dated 03.09.2026 but at the time of dictation of the judgement it
transpired that neither this matter is nominated to this Bench nor there is any
office report regarding the fact as to why these matters are listed before this
Bench even in spite of it being decided earlier by another Bench of this Court
which is still available.
4. In these circumstances, let both the matters be placed before Hon'ble The Chief
Justice for passing appropriate orders with regards to the said issue as stated
above and nominating these matters.
5. Office to place these matters before Hon'ble The Chief Justice forthwith. The
matters be then listed before the concerned Bench, if possible, on 13.10.2026."
4. These two matters have subsequently been nominated to this Bench vide order
dated 12.10.2026 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice.
5. Arguments have been advanced again at length by learned counsels for the
parties.
6. Judgement reserved.”
10. The facts common to both the matters are as under:-
(A) A First Information Report was lodged on 17.7.2024 as Case
Crime No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 110, 352 BNS, Police
Station- Kotwali, District Mahoba, by Adarsh Kumar Gupta alleging
therein that he has a Reliance Petrol Pump situated in Gandhi Nangar,
Mahoba, in which Amit son of Vasudev Verma, is appointed as D.S.M.

10
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
and Brajesh Kumar son of Ramgopal Savita, is appointed as pick-up
tanker driver. Both persons were present in the office situated at the
petrol pump on 16/17.07.2024 at about 1:30 a.m. wherein two unknown
persons came on a motorcycle and tried to get the door of office of petrol
pump opened. On hearing voices Amit Verma came near the door and
tried to stop them from opening the door and was talking to them, after
sometimes Amit Verma opened the door and immediately on opening the
door one person caught Amit Verma from his baniayan and pulled him
outside and while abusing assaulted him, after which Amit Verma got
himself released and came inside the office and closed the door. After it
the person standing outside forcibly pushed the glass door due to which
it broke and glass pierced the neck of Amit Verma. Amit Verma got
seriously injured and fell on the ground and became unconscious. On
seeing the same both the persons ran away on their motorcycle. Amit
Verma in an unconscious state was taken to Sadar Hospital, Mahoba
where the doctors seeing him serious referred him to Jhansi. The incident
was seen by Brajesh Kumar and a CCTV footage is also available.
Report be lodged and action be taken.
(B) Amit Kumar Verma subsequently died and his post mortem
examination was conducted on 20.07.2024. The doctor found the
following injuries on his body:-
“1. Surgical stitched wound having 12 black colored stitches
present over antero-lateral aspect of right side of neck.
Underneath neck muscles are ecchymosed. Stitches present over
vascular structures of neck.”
Cause of death was opined as under:-
“Cause of death in this case is injury sustained to Neuro-vascular
structures of Neck. Nature of Injury should be decided on the basis of
M.L.C. report and other circumstantial evidences collected. However,
Viscera has been preserved for chemical analysis for detection of any
intoxicating/irritant agent, sealed and handed over to police constable

11
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
concerned. Duration of death is within 08 hours since post-mortem
examination. Sings of Medical Intervention and Hospitalization present.”
(C) The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated
17.09.2024 was filed against Arsheel @ Amaan and Junaid Khan @
Sheebu for offences under Sections 352/103(1)/115(2)/3(5) BNS and
Sections 3(1) , 3(1) , 3(2)5 , 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act. The court of
द ध क
Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),
Mahoba took cognizance upon the same vide order dated 15.10.2024.
The accused Sheebu@Junaid filed Criminal Appeal No.10376 of 2024,
Sheebu@Junaid vs. State of U.P. and another, and accused Arsheel alias
Amaan filed Criminal Appeal No.11380 of 2024, Arsheel alias Amaan
vs. State of U.P. and another, before this Court with the prayer for bail.
Both the said appeals were connected together and decided by a common
order dated 09.4.2025 by another Bench of this Court and both the
appeals were dismissed. The orders passed therein read as under:-
1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
“
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2/informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire
record.
3. The above two connected Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by
the appellants - Sheebu @ Zunaid and Arsheel @ Amaan with the prayer to allow
the appeals and set aside the bail rejection orders dated 25.09.2024 (Sheebu @
Zunaid Vs. State of U.P.) and 07.11.2024 (Arsheel @ Amaan Vs. State of U.P.)
passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba and release the appellants on bail in
Case Crime No.350 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 103(1), 3 (5) of B.N.S.
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Kotwali, District Mahoba.
4. Since both the connected criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and
relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of by a common order.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 16/17.7.2024 at
about 1:30 A.M. when Amit Verma and Brijesh Kumar, the employees of the
informant, were present at the office of reliance petrol pump, two unknown
persons came by motorcycle and asked to open the door of the office, which was
refused by Amit, but after sometime when he opened the door, one of the accused
took him out of the office, hurled abuses and started beating him, but anyhow Amit
rescued himself and again came inside the office and closed the door. Meanwhile
one unknown person forcibly smashed the glass door of the office and due to

12
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
which the broken glass of the door got stuck in Amit's neck, who sustained serious
injuries and became unconscious. Both the unknown accused persons fled away
from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital and the said incident was
captured in the CCTV. On the very next day in the morning, F.I.R. was lodged
against unknown accused persons and subsequently after investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted in this matter.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed
the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is also
submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also
submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the S.C./S.T.
Act are lacking in this matter, therefore no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out
against the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants are not named in the
F.I.R. and no identification parade has been conducted by the I.O. of this case. It is
also submitted that during investigation in his subsequent statement, which was
recorded very belatedly, the informant disclosed the name of the appellants as
assailants. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the
prosecution version. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the
statement made by the injured and eyewitness Brijesh Kumar. It is also submitted
that charge-sheet in this matter was submitted under Sections 115 (2), 352, 103(1),
3 (5) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of S.C./S.T. Act. It is
also submitted that the present case is never connected with the murder of the
deceased. It is true that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the
Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community but no caste related remarks or
abuses were hurled to him by the appellants because the deceased was unknown
for them. It is also submitted that how the informant came to know the names of
the appellants, has not been clarified by the prosecution. It is also submitted that
except the motorcycle, no other incriminating article had been recovered on the
pointing out of the appellants. It is also submitted that after so many days,
consequent upon the incident, death of the deceased was caused on 20.7.2024
whereas the alleged assault was made on 17.7.2024. It is also submitted that the
cause of death has been opined by the doctor as injuries over the neck of the
deceased. It is also submitted that the appellants had absolutely no motive to
commit the crime and the crime, if any, was occurred in the spur of moment and
was a result of grave and sudden provocation, which cannot be termed as murder at
all. It is also submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 20.7.2024
having no criminal antecedents to their credit. It is also submitted that the court
concerned while passing the impugned orders did not take into account the facts
and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the
same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications
of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this
Court.
7. Per contra,  learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant as well as the
learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present appeal and it is
submitted that at the time of incident, the accused persons were not identified by
the informant or injured but subsequently  during the course of investigation, the

13
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
name of both the accused appellants came into light. The injured person died
during investigation on account of his injuries sustained in the incident by a broken
glass and that is why the offence was amended for other serious sections. It is also
submitted that Brijesh Kumar, the associate of the deceased, has corroborated the
prosecution version in his statement given to the I.O. The offence of the accused
appellants is very serious. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of
the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. The
appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased
belonged to SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order. The appellants are not entitled for any relaxation and their bail applications
are liable to be rejected and the appeals having no force are liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the entire record including the bail rejection orders
carefully.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made
by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and also considering the
fact that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community and a serious injury was
caused to him by the accused appellants in furtherance of common intention of
both the appellants; that there was no possibility of any false implication of the
appellants; that ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. regarding the active
participation of both the appellants in the commission of the crime; that not only
by the eyewitness but by the CCTV footage as well the accused appellants have
been sufficiently identified and keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the
offence wherein one person lost his life, this Court finds that no ground is made
out to allow the appeals, set-aside the anticipatory bail rejection orders and release
the accused appellants on bail.
10. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
”
(D) Subsequently charge against the accused were framed vide
order dated 25.10.2024, trial in the matter started and testimony of
Adarsh Kumar Gupta the first informant as P.W.-1 was recorded on
04.06.2025 and 01.07.2025 and thus concluded. Further testimony of
Brajesh Kumar was recorded as P.W.-2 before the trial court on
01.08.2025 and concluded on the same date.
(E) The accused Junaid Khan@Sheebu then filed a second bail
application dated 04.09.2025 numbered as Bail Application Computer
No.791 of 2025, before the trial court which was allowed vide order
dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba and he was directed to be
released on bail.

14
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
(F) The accused Arsheel @ Amaan filed second bail application
dated 18.8.2025 before the trial court being Bail Application Computer
No.737 of 2025, Arsheel @ Amaan vs. State of U.P., which also was
allowed vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba and he was
directed to be released on bail.
(G) Thus two appeals have then been filed before this Court by
Hirdesh Kumar the brother of the deceased Amit Kumar Verma, with the
prayers as aforesaid.
11. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant(s),
Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State, Sri Lavlesh
Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused
the record.
12. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant(s) in both the
appeals is common. It is submitted that the orders impugned are totally
illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that once prayer for bail in an appeal
has been rejected by the High Court, the trial court was not competent to
consider the prayer for bail of the said two accused in a second bail
application and then grant bail to them. It is submitted that grant of bail
by the trial court concerned after rejection of bail by the High Court is
clearly overstepping jurisdiction of the court. It is further submitted that
the bail of accused Arsheel@Amaan was presented for hearing before
the court concerned on 02.09.2025 on which 03.09.2025 was fixed as
next date. Subsequently the bail was allowed vide order dated
03.09.2025. It is submitted that pairokar of accused Arsheel@Amaan
also submitted bail bonds and sureties with affidavit of two guarantors
namely Santosh and Shakil Ahmad who were identified by Oath
Commissioner on 02.09.2025 which clearly shows that the accused had a
clear belief that they shall be granted bail in their second bail application
even on the day of its presentation before the court concerned. It is
submitted that once bail application has been rejected by the High Court,
the trial court seizes to have power to consider a second bail application
of the same accused in the same case. Reliance has been placed on the

15
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc.
vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another: AIR 2005 Supreme
Court 921, para-8. It is submitted that thus the appeal be allowed and the
bail granted to the said two accused-respondents namely Junaid
Khan@Sheebu and Arsheel alias Amaan, be cancelled and they be
directed to be taken into custody and trial be directed to proceed
expeditiously.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/respondents no. 2 in
both the appeals opposed the present appeal for cancellation of bail and
submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted that
after rejection of bail of the accused by this Court in their respective
appeals vide order dated 09.04.2025 trial in the matter started in which
two prosecution witnesses namely Adarsh Kumar Gupta the first
informant as P.W.-1 and Brajesh Kumar the alleged eye witness as
P.W.-2 were examined and then the second bail applications of the
accused/respondents were filed before the trial court concerned which
have been decided by a detailed order on merits on considering fresh
and new ground as pleaded and they have been granted bail. It is
submitted that the trial court concerned has in the order granting bail
specifically mentioned that it is a second bail application of the accused
and the first bail application was rejected after which his appeal was
rejected by the High Court. It is submitted that before the trial court
concerned counsel for the accused, learned State counsel and counsel for
the first informant were also heard and then trial court concerned
considering the matters on its merit and also taking into account the
statements of the prosecution witnesses examined before it, granted bail
to the accused. It is submitted that there has been no allegation of misuse
of bail granted to the accused/respondents, any tempering with the
evidence by both the accused/respondents and also any such act of not
co-operating with the investigation and even with the trial. It is
submitted that the second bail application before the trial court was filed
after testimony of the first informant and other witness who is an eye
witness was recorded before the trial court and the same was the basis of

16
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
filing the second bail application which was fresh and new ground in the
same. It is submitted that the accused had the liberty to prefer a fresh bail
application before the trial court after dismissal of their appeals by the
High Court in changed circumstances as he cannot be left remediless.
Reliance has been placed on the judgement of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 17.3.2025 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 9530 of 2024 (Dharam Singh Parihar vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh and others, with connected Criminal Appeals:
Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7868, to submit that the accused
cannot be left remediless after rejection of bail by the High Court in an
appeal but has a liberty to file a second bail application before the trial
court in changed circumstances. It is submitted that thus the present
appeals for cancellation of bail do not in anyway show that there has
been any act of misuse of bail, tempering with the evidence or non-
cooperation in the trial by the accused/respondents and thus the same be
dismissed.
14. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing
the records, it is evident that the issue before this Court as of now is that
orders dated 09.10.2025 and 03.09.2025 respectively granting bail to the
accused/respondents are under challenge and prayer has been made to
cancel their bails. The accused/respondents are on bail in the present
matter. The appeals are for cancellation of their bail granted by the trial
court in their second bail applications.
15. Grant of bail and cancellation of bail are two entirely different
situations. The law with regards to grant of bail to an accused and also
regarding cancellation of bail to an accused are different and well
defined.
16. The considerations for cancellation of bail have been considered
in various cases by the Apex Court. It has been repeatedly held as under:
A. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar : (1986) 4 SCC 481 the Court
culled out the grounds for cancellation of bail which are as under:
“(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar
criminal activity,

17
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation,
(iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses,
(iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which
would hamper smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country,
(vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or
becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety,
etc.”
B. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana : (1995) 1 SCC 349 para 4 is as
under:
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage
and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally
speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse
of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the
record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail
during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of
by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already
granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the
distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-

18
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.”
C. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Subramani Gopal
Krishanan : (2011) 5 SCC 296 para 23 is as under:
“23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between
yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order
granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already
granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of
bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course
of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the
accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative
materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the
materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused
absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.
In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”
D. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. : (2014) 16 SCC 508 paragraph No.
12 is as under:
“12. We have referred to certain principles to be kept in mind
while granting bail, as has been laid down by this Court from
time to time. It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail
after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself
or of some supervening circumstances warranting such
cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment
altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified,
illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which
should have been taken into consideration while dealing with
the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is

19
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior
court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case
belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While
dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell
upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the
supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It,
on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness
of the order passed by the court.”
E. In Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P. : (2024) 4 SCC 222 paragraph
No. 11 is as under:
“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.”
F. In Ankit Mishra v. State of M.P. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 809 paragraph
8 is as under:
“8. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case it
would be appropriate to bear in mind the law laid down by this
Court in the matter of Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
 (2022) 8 SCC 559 as to when bail once granted should be
cancelled by the same Court or by the higher Court. The
following is held in paras 31 to 36:
“31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once
granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner

20
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail
during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail,
very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for
an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already
granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid down
the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice;
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner;
(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;
(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or
threatening witnesses.
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 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

21
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
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.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015)
3 SCC (Cri) 527], the accused was granted bail by the High
Court. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of
U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the
principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under : (SCC
p. 513, para 12)
“12. … It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it
is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of
some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation
have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an
order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If
in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into
consideration while dealing with the application for bail have
not been taken note of or it is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the
order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different
category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case

22
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that
have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the
justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the
court.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. This Court in Mahipal [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2
SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] held that : (SCC p. 126, para
17)
“17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to
consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set
aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required
to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-
application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view
of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to
assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there
existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the
seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment.”
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash
Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC
189 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 848] held that : (SCC p. 195, paras 18-
19)
“18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also
to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie
case against the accused, the position and standing of the
accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the
accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused
the bail granted to him. …
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is
granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is

23
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
likelihood of misuse of bail. That factor, though no doubt
important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors
also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.”
G. In Victim ‘X’ Versus State of Bihar and Another : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1490 para 23 is as under:
“23. Recently, this Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 172 while placing reliance
upon the case of Ajwar v. Waseem,  (2024) 10 SCC 768
cancelled the bail granted to the accused in a dowry death case
observing as follows:
“18…. A superficial application of bail parameters not only
undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks
weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the
menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice,
both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must
safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to
claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding
grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by
this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:
“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted
in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must
consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role
attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the
accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and
repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the
likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is
granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and
evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [(2004) 7 SCC 525]; Kalyan

24
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, [(2004) 7 SCC
528]; Masroor v. State of U.P., [(2009) 14 SCC 286]; Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, [(2010) 14 SCC 496]; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P., [(2014) 16 SCC 508]; Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2018) 12 SCC
129]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, [(2020) 2 SCC 118].
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to
be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned
or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the
superior court. If there are serious allegations against the
accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such
an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted
the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it
transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant
material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the
offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.
In P v. State of M.P., [(2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a three-
Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli,
J.)] has spelt out the considerations that must weigh with the
Court for interfering in an order granting bail to an accused
under Section 439(1) CrPC in the following words: (SCC p.
224, para 24)
“24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for
cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether
any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of
the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State
of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349]. To put it differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere with an
order passed by the court below granting bail but if such an
order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material

25
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny
and interference by the appellate court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for
setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by
the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that
may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the
conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of
the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any
instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on
bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the
evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be
cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie
case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the
merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought
to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should
reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for
granting relief to the accused.
(Emphasis Supplied)”
H. In Phireram v. State of U.P. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1915 it is as
under:
“Principles governing Cancellation of Bail
54. The law on cancellation of bail is well settled through a
plethora of decisions of this Court.
55. In P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211 this Court 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.

26
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
“23. In a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Imran v. Mohd. Bhava [Imran v. Mohd. Bhava, (2022) 13
SCC 70] it has been held as follows:
“20. Indeed, it is a well-established principle that once bail
has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances
for its cancellation. However, this Court in its judgment
in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab [Vipan Kumar
Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518] has also reiterated,
that while conventionally,   certain supervening circumstances
impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an
accused , for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can also
be revoked by a superior court, when the previous court
granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record,
gravity of the offence or its societal impact. It was thus
observed:
‘9. … Conventionally, there can be supervening
circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are
non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the
bail. This Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
237] observed that:
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage
and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally
speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse
of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the

27
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail
during the trial.”
10. These principles have been reiterated time and again,
more recently by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in X v. State
of Telangana [X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC
511 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902].
11. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited
decision(s), bail can also be revoked where the court has
considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material
available on record which renders the order granting bail legally
untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused
and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the
investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few
situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of
bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the
administration of criminal justice system…’
xxx xxx xxx
23. Thus, while considering cancellation of bail already
granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant
scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when
granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on
record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not
been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where
bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail
is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited
hereinabove, enumerate certain basic principles which must be
borne in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of

28
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix,
which assumes a significant role in determination of bail
matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard
to the abovementioned well-settled principles.”
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for
cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider whether
any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of
the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State
of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be
loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below
granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or
perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an
order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate
court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
56. This Court then summed up the principles or
circumstance governing the cancellation of bail as under:—
“25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the
accused under Section   439(1)   CrPC   can be cancelled are
enumerated below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

29
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground
and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in
nature and not exhaustive.”
(Emphasis supplied)
57. The governing principle is that if the accused tampers
with evidence, threatens witnesses, or attempts to subvert the
trial, the indulgence of bail is to be withdrawn. It is a recognition
that liberty is conditional, not absolute, and subject always to
the larger interest of ensuring a fair trial. Considerations for
cancellation of bail must always be on the basis of the well
settled principles as discussed aforesaid. There cannot be any
extraneous considerations involved that are unknown to the law
of bails.
58. At the same time, emphasis has to be laid that
cancellation of bail occupies a distinct space in the criminal
justice machinery. Cancellation intervenes at the stage of
violation, to prevent recurrence. In State through Delhi
Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, this Court
underscored that tampering with witnesses constitutes a cogent
ground for cancellation, for the “opportunity of being on bail
cannot be permitted to be abused for the purpose of thwarting
the course of justice.” Similarly, in Raghubir Singh v. State of
Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481, it was reiterated that intimidation of
witnesses is sufficient to revoke the liberty granted. It must be

30
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
guided by the lodestar of preventing interference with witnesses
that “strikes at the root of the rule of law.”
59. Thus, the considerations that must weigh with the court
for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved
by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances
that might have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the
conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of
the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any
instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on
bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the
evidence in any manner etc.”
I. In Abhimanue v. State of Kerala : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2037 it is
as under:
“17. Law is well settled that cancellation of bail is distinct from
revocation of an order granting bail. Bail may be cancelled
when the accused violates any of the conditions imposed. On
the other hand, an order granting bail can be revoked if such an
order is found to be perverse or illegal. In P v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2022) 15 SCC 211 a three-judge Bench of this Court,
after analyzing various previous decisions, discussed the
distinction between the two. Relevant paragraphs of the
decision are reproduced below:
21. Echoing the above principle, in Ranjit Singh v. State of
M.P. [Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 797 : (2014)
6 SCC (Cri) 405], it has been held thus:
“19. … There is also a distinction between the concept of setting
aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation
of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances
warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse
one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the
superior court.”

31
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
22. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary [Abdul
Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC
754 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 257], this Court has opined that: (SCC
p. 763, para 19)
“19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified,
illegal or perverse order is different from the concept of
cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or
new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which
require such cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid
decisions would present before us that an order granting bail
can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to
law by the court superior to the court which granted the bail and
not by the same court.”

24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling
bail once granted, the court must consider whether any
supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State
of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be
loathe to interfere with an order passed by the court below
granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or
perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an
order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the appellate
court.
25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused
under Section 439(1) CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated
below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;

32
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
(f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
(g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
(h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground
and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
(i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in
nature and not exhaustive.
(emphasis ours)”
3. Cancellation of bail can be done in cases on the parameters
referred to above.
17.  Apart from the above grounds for cancellation of bail it is to be
kept in mind that rejection of bail and cancellation of bail are two different
things wherein the cancellation of bail is a harsh step as it interferes with
the liberty of an individual and thus the same should not be resorted to
lightly.
18. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee : (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles,
while deciding petition for bail:
“(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

33
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if r released
on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail.”
19. It is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to
deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the
court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the
Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation : (2012) 1 SCC 40 has been held as under:—
“The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty
must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called
upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle
that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a
cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands
that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody
pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such
cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the

34
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of
any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only
the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty,
save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the
question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one
must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be
improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval
of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for
it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the
propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”
20. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta v. CBI : (2017) 5 SCC 218, the
Apex Court has held as under:
“This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, also involving an economic
offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue
of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an
accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that
the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was
underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment
before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would
be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval
of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not
or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of
giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was
enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused
pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in
nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing

35
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of
the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of
the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while
examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or
the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated
to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. That detention in custody of under-trial
prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.”
21. The Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of
U.P. : (2018) 3 SCC 22 held that freedom of an individual can not be
curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be
proved. It has further been held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The
was held as under:
“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important
facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles
appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and
more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This
does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our
society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely
the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the

36
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating
officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating
officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of
being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need
to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the
judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or
has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this including

37
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor
that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding
in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by
this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.”
22. The object of granting of bail is to secure the attendance of an
accused in trial. The normal rule is of bail and not jail. The Court has to
keep in mind the nature of acquisitions, nature of evidence in support
thereof, severity of punishment, character of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in the matter.
23. It is trite that bail once granted should not be cancelled ordinarily,
but where the facts are so grave that they shake the conscience of the
Court; and where the release of the accused on bail would have an adverse
impact on the society, the Courts are not powerless and are expected to
exercise jurisdiction conferred by law to cancel such bail orders so as to
subserve the ends of justice. The present one is precisely a case of such
nature.
24. The orders impugned dated 09.10.2025 & 03.09.2025 respectively
are orders passed on the second bail applications of the
accused/respondents. Perusal of the said orders goes to show that they
are detailed orders considering the matters on merits. Even the fact that
previously the first bail applications of the accused/respondents were
rejected by the trial court and even the prayer for bail was rejected by the
High Court previously, was also considered. The trial court considering
the matters on merits and also considering the statements of two
prosecutions witnesses recorded before it as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, after a
detailed analysis came to be satisfied that it is a fit case for bail and thus
proceeded to grant bail to the accused/respondents. Nothing could be
demonstrated in the present appeals with the prayer for cancellation of
bail that there has been any misuse of bail granted to the accused,
tempering with the evidence by them or their any non-cooperation in the
trial, even in the four corners of the judgements mentioned above calling
upon to consider the prayer for cancellation of bail. In so far as the

38
CRLA No. - 11314 of 2025
submission regarding accused Arsheel@Amaan getting his bail bonds
and sureties prepared on the day of filing of his bail application itself and
getting them verified by Oath Commissioner on the same day is
concerned, cannot be said to be an act which would demonstrate any
such grave issue calling upon to cancel the bail granted to him. Trial in
the matter is underway in which two witnesses have been examined. In
this view of the matter no ground for interference is made out.
25. The present appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed.
26. At this stage, however, trial court is directed to ensure expeditious
disposal of trial which shall proceed without granting undue
adjournment to either of the parties.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
October 28, 2026
Naresh.
Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad