AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
The instant bail cancellation application is moved under Section 483 (3) of the BNSS, 2023, by the applicant – Motsin S/o Nazim Hasan, for cancellation of bail of respondent no.2 – Shahbaz S/o Shahzaad, who was enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench by order dated 01.04.2025 in BA 1st No.1948 of 2024.
Respondent No.2 Shahbaz is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the charge of double murder of son and daughter in law of applicant arising out of a First Information Report dated 21.06.2023 bearing Case Crime No.0071 of 2023. The Coordinate Bench enlarge respondent No.2 on bail by order dated 01.04.2025 with the following conditions:-
“(i)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner.
(ii)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed and shall cooperate with the trial; and
(iii)In case of any breach of these conditions, it is made clear that the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.”
Now, the instant bail cancellation application is moved by the applicant on the ground that after grant of bail, the respondent no.2 – Shahbaz, is misusing the conditions as mandated in the order and in this regard a First Information Report was lodged on 24.04.2025 bearing FIR No.0114 of 2025, at Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur, against the respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 127 (2), 352 and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023 in which he has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 127 (2), 352 and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023.
A further reference has been made of one another FIR, which was lodged by one Haseeb on 31.07.2025 at Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur, bearing FIR No.0206 of 2025, wherein, also the respondent no.2 is chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 351 (2) of BNS, 2023.
A further reference is also made of report of Sub-Inspector, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur, dated 06.08.2025, whereby the respondent no.2 was challaned and taken into custody, and thereafter, based on the challani report, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Saharanpur by order dated 29.08.2025, extern the respondent no.2, for six months outside the District Saharanpur.
A further reference is made of another FIR lodged by Smt. Parveen W/o Mohtsin, at Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur on 14.10.2025 bearing FIR No.0320 of 2025, wherein, the respondent No.2, along with other four persons, namely, Sadab, Shamshad, Naushad and Aamir Alam, have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 61 (2) and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that all these three FIR (s) are lodged after grant of bail to the respondent no.2. He further submits that even in BA 1st No.1948 of 2024, wherein, the respondent no.2 – Shahbaz, was granted bail by the coordinate Bench, a false statement has been given that he has no criminal antecedents though as on that day respondent no.2, was facing trial arising out of Case Crime No.348 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 368 of IPC..
It has also been apprised that SSP, Saharanpur, vide its order dated 03.07.2026, declared the respondent no.2 as History-Sheeter [(H.S.No.21 (Class-B)], and directed to the SHO, P.S. Nagal, District Saharanpur to keep the respondent no.2 under strict surveillance.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after grant of bail, the respondent no.2 – Shahbaz, repeatedly indulged in criminal activities which is evident from the fact that three FIR (s) has been lodged against him out of which in two FIR (s), he is chargesheeted and based on his conduct SSP, Saharanpur, also declared him as a history-sheeter, he is also extern from District – Saharanpur therefore, in such an eventuality, his bail should be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance of a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Munilakshmi Vs. Narendra Babu and another” reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924 by placing reliance to paragraph 20 of the judgment, which read as under:-
“20.This Court undoubtedly has a narrow scope of interference in an order granting bail while exercising its power of judicial review and will be invariably reluctant to interfere in such order even if it has a different opinion. The Courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to liberty embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution on one hand and the right of the orderly society, which is committed to the rule of law, on the other. The delicate balance in the case of long incarceration is drawn by releasing a suspect on bail on such terms and conditions that will ensure that a fair and free trial is not hampered. However, if it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.
He further placed reliance to another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Phireram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another” passed in Criminal Appeal No.3830 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9082 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025, by placing reliance to paragraphs 54 to 57, which are as under:-
“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. reported in (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.
“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 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 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 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)
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;
(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)
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.”
Learned counsel further placed reliance to another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta @ Sonu Chaudhary and another” reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 211, by placing reliance to paragraph 21, which read as under:-
“21.Further, the fact that respondent No.1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, respondent No.1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found.”
He further placed reliance to another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Victim ‘X’ Vs. State of Bihar and another”, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4335 of 2024, by placing reliance to paragraph 24, which read asunder:-
“24.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.”
Finally, learned counsel for the applicant concludes his arguments by submitting that admittedly in the BA1st No.1948 of 2024, the respondent no.2, have not disclosed about his criminal antecedents, and furthermore after grant of bail, the respondent no.2 indulged in criminal activities and has also been declared as history-sheeter by the SSP by an official order dated 03.07.2026, and now the respondent No.2, is also facing trial for heinous offence of double murder, therefore, his bail deserves to be cancelled.
On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that once the bail is granted by the competent court, it cannot be cancelled mechanically or as a matter of course, and after being released the respondent No.2, has not misused any conditions of the bail, and there is not even a single allegation of misusing the liberty or violation of any conditions.
It is submitted that the present applicant lodged FIR on 22.04.2025, just ten days’ after the respondent’s release, though as a matter of fact, on 22.04.2025, the respondent was not even present at the place of occurrence, and subsequently, another FIR was lodged also on 31.07.2025 by a person who is very close to the complainant and the repeated registration of the FIR(s) against the respondent no.2 after grant of bail clearly demonstrates a vindictive and malicious design to pressurize the respondent no.2 to nullify the order granting bail. It is submitted that mere registration of subsequent FIR(s) is not a ground for cancellation of bail, especially when the FIR(s) are by close persons of the same informant, and so far as non-disclosure of criminal antecedents the bail application, is concerned it is completely misleading and legally untenable, since the respondent no.2 have no prior conviction and the antecedents as relied upon by the applicant is only a pending case, in which he is not convicted so far and the matter is sub judice.
A further reference is made in the objection that the FIR lodged by one Haseeb S/o Julfkar dated 31.07.2025 the informant was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident and the alleged occurrence, was based on hearsay and the applicant has failed to point out any conduct of the respondent no.2 post bail, except by relying upon manufactured FIR(s) and hearsay allegations.
After gone through with the entire record admittedly the respondent no.2 after being released on bail is indulged in criminal activities which is evident that in FIR No.0114 of 2025 lodged at Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 127 (2), 352 and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023, the respondent no.2 is chargesheeted.
The second incident pertains to FIR No.206 of 2025, lodged on 31.07.2025, wherein, the respondent no.2, is now chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 351 (2) of BNS, 2023.
Apart from that as per challani report dated 06.08.2025, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Saharanpur by an executive order dated 29.08.2025, extern the respondent no.2 from the geographical boundaries of Saharanpur for the period of six months. There is also a suppression of criminal antecedents in BA 1st No.1948 of 2024, though at that time he was facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 368 of IPC in Session Trial No.2377 of 2022.
Now following Factors are relevant for consideration in the instant Bail Cancellation Application:-
“(a)The aforesaid post bail conduct after grant of bail to respondent no.2 itself reveals that the respondent no.2, is repeatedly indulged in criminal activities.
(b)Contention of respondent no.2, that fresh FIR(s) are vindictive and holds no water in the eyes of law, but this fact cannot be ruled out that in the subsequent FIR(s) after grant of bail, the respondent no.2 is also chargesheeted, which itself indicates that on culmination of the investigation, the respondent no.2, is prima facie found to be guilty.
(c)Apart from this, the subsequent FIR(s) though lodged at Saharanpur, which is part of the State of U.P. i.e. outside the territory of the State of Uttarakhand, but the post bail conduct is evaluated on the Pan-India basis to assess the conduct of the accused. Further SSP, Saharanpur also declared respondent no.2 as a History-Sheeter and is also extern from the boundaries of District Saharanpur.
(d)The aforesaid post-bail conduct of the respondent no.2 clearly establishes that he is misusing the liberty as granted by this Court while granting him bail in Case Crime No.0071 of 2023, therefore, he does not deserves to enjoy the liberty as given by this Court while granting bail.”
It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of judgment that the criteria for grant of bail and the criteria for cancelling rest entirely on different footing, while regular bail evaluating the prima facie merits of the case, and application for cancellation of bail strictly on the post bail conduct of the accused.
The record further reveals that one of the FIR explicitly detailing how the respondent no.2 threaten the informant to withdraw the main case, wherein, he is facing trial for heinous offence of double murder, and after taking into consideration his post-bail conduct, this Court cannot stand as a silent spectator. The post bail conduct of the respondent no.2 clearly demonstrates a flagrant disregard and motive of abuse of the judicial liberty.
In addition to this, a detail report of DCRB, District Saharanpur regarding criminal antecedents of respondent no.2, is also enclosed, which are as follows:-
“(a)Case Crime No.114 of 2025, under Sections 127 (2), 352 and 351 (3) of BNS, at Police Station Nagal, Saharanpur.
(b)Case Crime No.206 of 2025, under Section 351 (2) of BNS, at Police Station Nagal, Saharanpur.
(c)Case Crime No.008 of 2026, under Sections 352 and 351 (3) of BNS and under Section 67 of IT Act, at Police Station Nagal, Saharanpur.
(d)Case Crime No.320 of 2025, under Sections 316 (2), 318 (2), 336 (3), 338, 340 (2), 351 (3) and 61 (2) of BNS, at Police Station Nagal, Saharanpur.
(e)Case Crime No.439 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376D, 380 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Fatehpur, Saharanpur.
(f)Case Crime No.348 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and under Sections ¾ of POCSO Act, at Police Station Fatehpur, Saharanpur.”
After gone through with the entire records including the report of Incharge, DCRB, Saharanpur and the report of the SHO, Police Station Nagal, Saharanpur, dated 08.04.2026 and also after gone through the judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, what this Court has observed that after grant of bail the respondent no.2, is repeatedly indulged in criminal activities and admittedly he has also been declared History-Sheeter by the SSP, Saharanpur, and there is long criminal antecedents and as per the report of the SHO, Nagal, Saharanpur, it reveals that respondent no.2 is also pressurizing the informants to withdraw all the FIR(s). Thus conduct of the respondent no.2 as reflected from the record warrant immediate cancellation of bail.
In view of the observation and discussion as above instant bail cancellation application is allowed and the order granting bail to the respondent no.2 vide order dated 01.04.2025, passed in BA 1st No.1948 of 2024 is recalled and cancelled forthwith and the respondent no.2 is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court forthwith and in the event he fails to surrender, the concerned SHO is directed to take the respondent no.2 into immediate judicial custody.
Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned Trial Court, Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun as well as to the SHO, of Police Station Clementown, Dehradun for strict and immediate compliance.