Allahabad HC Refuses To Cancel Bail Despite Incorrect “Charges Not Framed” Statement, Finding Other Grounds Supported Grant

In brief

The question

Whether the incorrect statement in the bail order that charges had not been framed warranted cancellation of bail.

The court held

The Court held that no case for cancellation had been made out, notwithstanding the incorrect statement concerning the framing of charges.

It also directed

It rejected the application seeking cancellation of the 1 September 2026 bail order.

01Facts

The applicant sought cancellation of the order dated 1 September 2026 granting opposite party no. 2 bail in Case Crime No. 491 of 2016, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bahraich.

¶ 2

The prosecution alleged that the accused had sold plots to the complainant under sale deeds executed in 2013 and 2014, despite having mortgaged the land to the State Bank of India.

¶ 2

The cancellation application challenged, among other matters, the bail order’s statement that charges had not been framed; the applicant produced an order showing that charges had been framed on 4 October 2024.

¶ 3–4

The applicant also relied on Supreme Court decisions setting out the grounds for cancelling bail.

¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.Whether the incorrect statement in the bail order that charges had not been framed warranted cancellation of bail.

¶ 3–4

ii.Whether the bail order otherwise disclosed a recognised ground for cancellation, including reliance on irrelevant or untenable considerations, perversity, or another defect warranting interference.

¶ 5–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the distinction between the considerations governing the grant of bail and those governing its cancellation.

Under Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 4 SCC 222, bail may be cancelled where, among other grounds, the accused misuses the liberty granted, breaches bail conditions, bail was granted contrary to statutory restrictions, or bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud.

¶ 5

Under Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559, cancellation is not confined to supervening circumstances; it may also be justified where the bail court relied on substantial irrelevant material, ignored relevant matters or the accused’s criminal record, granted bail on untenable grounds, or made an order that is seriously discrepant, whimsical, capricious or perverse.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406 Section 419 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the trial court had framed charges on 4 October 2024, contrary to the statement recorded in the bail order.

¶ 3–4

It nevertheless found that this was not the sole basis for granting bail: the order contained detailed reasons and considered relevant legal authorities. The error therefore did not, by itself, establish that bail had been granted on an unsustainable basis or satisfy the recognised grounds for cancellation.

¶ 4, 7–8