# Shashank Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1137
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 67 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shashank-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53863
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Ankit Srivastava, Ch. Dil Nisar, G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the bail granted to accused-opposite
party no. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad should be cancelled on grounds of
improper consideration of facts and gravity of
allegations.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 439, - Indian Penal Code
(IPC) - Sections - 34, 120-B, 147, 323,
342, 386, 411, 504, 506- Bail cancellation
application - filed by informant - seeking
cancellation of the Bail granted to the accused
opposite party no. 2 - passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge
- Applicant pleaded
that
recovery of rupees 8 lakhs from accused and his
role as main accused was ignored - Sessions
Judge allegedly granted bail casually, without
considering seriousness of charges - Opposite
party argued that bail cancellation requires
proof of misuse of liberty, violation of conditions,
or fraud in obtaining bail - Court finds that
recovery
not
supported
by
independent
witnesses - observations in the bail order were
narration of FIR allegations, not findings,
opposite party no.2 has not been granted bail
on the ground of parity - held, No evidence of
misuse of bail, threats, or tampering with
evidence - hence, Bail cancellation application is
rejected. (Para - 7, 8, 9)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Ajwar Vs. Waseem and Another, 2024 (10) SCC
768,
1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2024 (4) SCC 222.

LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Code of Criminal
Procedure.
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail cancellation - Recovery - Main accused -
Parity in bail - Independent witness - Misuse of
liberty - Rioting - Voluntarily causing hurt -
Intentional insult - Criminal intimidation -
Wrongful confinement - Extortion by putting in
fear of death or grievous hurt - Criminal
conspiracy.

CASE ARISING FROM
(i) Case Crime No. 803 of 2023, under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 120-B,
411, 34 IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District
Ghaziabad - (ii) Bail granted in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 7139 of 2024 (Ishant
Tyagi @ Vasu Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) on
01.01.2025 - (iii) Bail cancellation application
filed as BAILC No. 67 of 2025.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Sandeep Mishra,
Shri Vishvendra Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri V.P. Srivastava,
Senior Counsel, Assisted by Ch. Dil Nisar, Shri
Chandan Singh, A.G.A.

## Text

9 All. Shashank Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1137
made the order had no jurisdiction or in
which the Court has based its decision
on evidence which should not have
been admitted, or cases where the
unsuccessful party has not been given a
proper opportunity of being heard, or
the burden of proof has been placed on
the wrong shoulders. Wherever the
court comes to the conclusion that the
unsuccessful party has not had a
proper trial according to law, then the
Court can interfere. But, in my
opinion, the Court ought not to
interfere merely because it thinks that
possibly the Judge who heard the case
may have arrived at a conclusion which
the High Court would not have arrived
at."

13.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
revisional order dated 1.5.2025, passed by
the Additional District Judge, Court No.8,
District
Bareilly
in
S.C.C.
Revision
No.28/2023 (Hemlata Kapoor and Others
vs. J.B. Motors) is liable to be set aside and
the same is hereby set aside.

14. The petition is allowed. The
Judge, Small Causes is directed to decide
the S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2016, considering
the pending application under Section 23 of
the Act in the light of the ratio of law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court
in
Bhure
Khan
Warsi
(supra)
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
6 months from the date of production of the
certified copy of the order, in accordance
with law.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1137
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.
67 of 2025

Shashank Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sandeep Mishra, Vishvendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Ankit Srivastava, Ch. Dil Nisar, G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the bail granted to accused-opposite
party no. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad should be cancelled on grounds of
improper consideration of facts and gravity of
allegations.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 439, - Indian Penal Code
(IPC) - Sections - 34, 120-B, 147, 323,
342, 386, 411, 504, 506- Bail cancellation
application - filed by informant - seeking
cancellation of the Bail granted to the accused
opposite party no. 2 - passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge
- Applicant pleaded
that
recovery of rupees 8 lakhs from accused and his
role as main accused was ignored - Sessions
Judge allegedly granted bail casually, without
considering seriousness of charges - Opposite
party argued that bail cancellation requires
proof of misuse of liberty, violation of conditions,
or fraud in obtaining bail - Court finds that
recovery
not
supported
by
independent
witnesses - observations in the bail order were
narration of FIR allegations, not findings,
opposite party no.2 has not been granted bail
on the ground of parity - held, No evidence of
misuse of bail, threats, or tampering with
evidence - hence, Bail cancellation application is
rejected. (Para - 7, 8, 9)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Ajwar Vs. Waseem and Another, 2024 (10) SCC
768,
1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2024 (4) SCC 222.

LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Code of Criminal
Procedure.
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail cancellation - Recovery - Main accused -
Parity in bail - Independent witness - Misuse of
liberty - Rioting - Voluntarily causing hurt -
Intentional insult - Criminal intimidation -
Wrongful confinement - Extortion by putting in
fear of death or grievous hurt - Criminal
conspiracy.

CASE ARISING FROM
(i) Case Crime No. 803 of 2023, under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 120-B,
411, 34 IPC, Police Station Nandgram, District
Ghaziabad - (ii) Bail granted in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 7139 of 2024 (Ishant
Tyagi @ Vasu Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) on
01.01.2025 - (iii) Bail cancellation application
filed as BAILC No. 67 of 2025.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Sandeep Mishra,
Shri Vishvendra Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri V.P. Srivastava,
Senior Counsel, Assisted by Ch. Dil Nisar, Shri
Chandan Singh, A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Sandeep
Mishra
alongwith Sri Vishvendra Singh learned
counsel for the informant-applicant, Sri
V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ch. Dil Nisar, learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 Sri Chandan
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and
perused the material on record.

2.
The
instant
bail
cancellation
application has been moved on behalf of
the informant seeking cancellation of the
bail granted to the accused-opposite party
no.2 vide order dated 01.01.2025, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.6, District Ghaziabad in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 7139 of 2024
(Ishant Tyagi @ Vasu Tyagi Vs. State of
U.P.) in Case Crime No. 803 of 2023 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 120B, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Nandgram,
District Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicantinformant submits that concerned Sessions
Judge, Ghaziabad, in spite of making
specific observation in its bail order dated
01.01.2025 to the effect that the recovery of
Rs. 8 lacs has been made from the
possession of the opposite party no. 2 and
he is the main accused, has granted bail to
the opposite party no. 2 merely on the
ground that all the accused persons have
been granted bail. Learned counsel further
argued that the accused persons, who have
been enlarged on bail were not named in
the F.I.R. and from their possession nothing
had been recovered. Learned counsel
further argued that the opposite party no.2
is the main accused, as has also been
observed by the learned Sessions Judge,
and that recovery has been made from his
possession to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. He
further submits that the learned Sessions
Judge, Ghaziabad in a very casual manner,
without
considering
the
gravity
of
allegation, granted bail to the accused
opposite party no.2. Therefore, the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge may
be set aside. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon
paragraph nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 of a decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajwar Vs.
Waseem and another, 2024 (10) SCC 768.
Those paragraphs read as below:-

26. While considering as to
whether bail ought to be granted in a
matter involving a serious criminal offence,
9 All. Shashank Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1139
the Court must consider the relevant
factors like the nature of accusation 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. and Another (2004) 7 SCC 525;
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan
alias Pappu Yadav and Another(supra);
Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and
Another (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
(2014)16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2018)
12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia and Another(supra).

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
Madhya
Pradesh
and
Another(supra)
decided by a three judges 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) of the CrPC in the following
words:

"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."

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
1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a
three-Judges bench of this Court, has
observed that the power to grant bail under
Section 439 Cr.P.C is of wide amplitude
and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as
the case may be, is bestowed with
considerable discretion while deciding an
application for bail. But this discretion is
not unfettered. The order passed must
reflect due application of judicial mind
following well established principles of
law. In ordinary course, courts would be
slow to interfere with the order where bail
has been granted by the courts below. But
if it is found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
material, the appellate Court would be well
within its power to set aside and cancel the
bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Ram Bilas and
Another (2001) 6 SCC 338); Narendra K.
Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another
(2008) 13 SCC 584.

(emphasis supplied)

4. Learned counsel for the applicantinformant thus argued that the learned
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad while granting
bail to the accused-opposite party no.2 did
not consider the parameters for granting
bail to the accused-opposite party no.2 and
in a very cursory and routine manner
granted bail to the accused-opposite party
no.2, therefore the bail order is liable to be
set aside and the bail granted to the
accused-opposite party no.2 is liable to be
cancelled.

5.
On
the
other
hand,
Sri
V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ch.Dil Nisar, learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2 submits that
after considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case in its entirety, the
learned Court of Sessions, Ghaziabad
granted bail to the accused-opposite party
no.2. Learned counsel further submits that
in catena of judgement Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that consideration of bail and
cancellation thereof are entirely different
and bail granted to the accused can only be
cancelled, if the Court is satisfied that after
being released on bail, the accused has
misused the liberty of bail; flouted the
conditions of bail order; that the bail
granted was in ignorance of statutory
provisions restricting the powers of the
Court to grant bail; and that the bail was
procured by misrepresentation or fraud,
whereas in the present case none of such
situation occurred. So far as the submission
of learned counsel for the applicant, that
the learned Court of Sessions while
granting bail to the accused-opposite party
no.2 has specifically observed that recovery
of Rs. 8 lacs has been made from the
possession of the opposite party no.2 and
he is the main accused and that all the
accused persons have been granted bail, is
concerned, learned counsel further submits
that the alleged recovery is not supported
by any independent witness. The learned
court below observed that from a perusal of
the FIR, the opposite party no. 2 appears to
be the main accused when as a matter of
fact, there is no such findings that the
opposite party no.2 is the main accused.
Furthermore the opposite party no. 2 has
not been granted bail on the ground of
parity and therefore the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant has no force. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel has placed
9 All. Shashank Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1141
reliance upon paragraph no. 11 of the
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2024 (4) SCC 222, which is
quoted below:-

"11. Law is well settled by a
catena of judgments rendered by this Court
that the considerations for grant of bail and
cancellation thereof are entirely different.
Bail granted to an accused can only be
cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after
being released on bail:

(a) the accused has misused the
liberty granted to him;

(b) flouted the conditions of bail
order;

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

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

In the present case, none of these
situations existed."

6. Learned Senior Counsel thus argued
that the order passed by learned Court of
Sessions, by which the accused-opposite
party no.2 has been granted bail is perfectly
legal, just and proper, which calls for no
interference by this Court and therefore the
instant bail cancellation application is liable
to be rejected.

7. The main thrust, for cancellation of
the bail granted to the opposite party no.2,
of learned counsel for the applicant is upon
paragraph no.10 of the bail order dated
01.01.2025, which is quoted below:-

"10. अमभयोग दैमनकी के अवलोकन से मवमदत
होता है मक पुमलस के द्वारा इस अमभयुि को सहारनपुर से वारण्ट बी
पर अमभरक्षा में मलया गया है । इसके द्वारा आठ लाख रुपये की
बरामदगी करायी गयी है। प्रथम सूचना ररपोटट के अवलोकन से
मवमदत होता है मक यह इस प्रकरण का मुख्य अमभयुि है। इस
अमभयुि का कथन है मक इसके एवं वादी मुकदमा की पुरानी
जानपहचान है। मजसके संबंध में साक्ष्य प्रटतुत मकये गये है। मजस पर
अमभयोजन की ओर से कोई कथन नहीं आया है। इस अमभयुि के
द्वारा अपने मुकदमा धारा 307 भा0 दं0 स0 के मनणटय की प्रमत
प्रटतुत की गयी है, मजसमें उसे दोिमुि कर मदया गया है। अमभयोजन
की ओर से कोई अन्य आपरामधक इमतहास प्रटतुत नहीं मकया गया
है। इस प्रकरण में आरोप पत्र प्राप्त हो चुका है एवं लगभग समटत
अमभयुिगण की जमानत इस न्यायालय अथवा माननीय उच्च
न्यायालय से टवीकार हो चुकी है। इस अमभयुि के पास से मकसी भी
हमथयार की बरामदगी नहीं हुयी है। समटत धाराएं ममजटरेट न्यायालय
द्वारा परीक्षणीय हैं।"

8. So far as recovery of Rs. 8 lacs is
concerned, the same is not supported by
any independent witness, whereas the
observation made by learned Sessions
Court that "प्रथम सूचना ररपोटट के अवलोकन से मवमदत होता
है मक यह इस प्रकरण का मुख्य अमभयुि है्‌ ।" is not a
finding recorded by the learned Sessions
Court, but a narration of the FIR allegation,
according to which the opposite party no. 2
appears
to
be
the
main
accused.
Furthermore the observation "लगभग समटत
अमभयुिगण की जमानत इस न्यायालय अथवा माननीय उच्च
न्यायालय से टवीकार हो चुकी है। " that is only a fact
noted by the learned Sessions Judge and the
opposite party no. 2 has not been granted
bail on the ground of parity. Thus the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the applicant has no force and reliance of
learned counsel for the applicant upon
paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the judgement
rendered in the matter of Ajwar (supra)
does not come to the aid of the applicant, in
the present case. So far as paragraph no. 28
of the aforesaid judgement is concerned
that pertains to consideration for setting
aside the bail order with respect to the
conduct of accused while on bail any
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attempt on the part of accused to
procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial,
any instance of threats being extended to
the witnesses or tampering with the
evidence in any manner, which has also not
been pointed out by learned counsel for the
applicant. In Ajwar (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that the Courts
may remain cautious while granting bail to
the accused and avoid making such detailed
reasoning as may prejudice the accused and
only prima facie case has to be seen at the
stage of bail. Besides the fact that the
offence alleged is triable by Magistrate,
none of the grounds enumerated in the
above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court for considering cancellation of
bail granted is available, in the present
facts, therefore, in the opinion of the Court,
learned counsel for the applicant could not
point out any good ground for cancelling
the bail granted to the opposite party no.2
vide order dated 01.01.2025, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.6, District Ghaziabad.

9. Accordingly, the bail cancellation
application lacks merit and is rejected.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
482 BNSS No. 1110 of 2025

Jibrail @ Baba ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Priyanka Yadav, Rizwanul Haque Ansari,
Santi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
applicant
can
be
granted
anticipatory bail when the only evidence against
him is the statement of a co-accused in custody.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482, -
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 -
Sections - 305(A), 331(4), 317(2) -
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections
438- Anticipatory Bail Application - filed under
Section 482 B.N.S.S. by the applicant - FIR -
offence of theft of Rs. 17000/- and jewellery -
Applicant implicated solely on co-accused's
custodial statement - Sessions Judge rejected
anticipatory bail relying on Pradeep Sharma
(2014) and Iddu v. State of U.P. (2023) - Court
held that constitutional bench rulings (Sibbia,
Sushila Aggarwal) prevail over smaller bench
decisions -Anticipatory bail is not exceptional but
a recognized remedy - Applicant entitled to
anticipatory bail subject to conditions. (Para -
13, 14, 16)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
1. Iddu & Others v. State of U.P. & Others
(2023)
2. State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2
SCC 171
3. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
(1980) 2 SCC 565 (Constitution Bench)
4. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2020) 5 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench)

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 - Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Anticipatory Bail - Co-accused Statement -
Constitutional Bench - False Implication -
Regular Bail - Lakhimpur Kheri - Bail Conditions.