# Veer Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 36
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 363 of 2025
- **Bench:** Raj Beer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veer-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54301
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a ground that despite two First Information Reports were lodged the Commission proceeded with
evaluation of written examination and result was declared, therefore, no subsequent decision could
be taken to cancel it, cannot be accepted since State has meanwhile conducted an in-depth
investigation and after being satisfied that integrity of examination was compromised, there was no
legal basis to take a subsequent decision to continue it.

25. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that a decision to cancel result of written
examination was based on a detail inquiry, outcome of investigation and a specific proof that
atleast about 19 candidates were benefited as well as that process of present examination was not
concluded entirely since only result of written examination was declared and process of interview
was not commenced. It is not a case where entire selection process was already concluded.
Therefore, petitioners cannot claim that they were adversely affected being finally selected since
they still have to go through rigor of interview.

26. The Court also takes note of a settled legal position that a candidate has no indefeasible
right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted
since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited also. It is the
fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no circumstance it can be
permitted to compromise (See, Employees State Insurance Corporation and another vs. Dr.
Vinay Kumar and others, (2022)18 SCC 358).

27. In view of above, I find no reason to interfere with impugned decision. Petitioners can still
participate in fresh written examination, for which a schedule has already been published.

28. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 36
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 363 of 2025

Veer Pal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the bail granted to the accused in a case under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act was liable to be cancelled on account of alleged misuse of bail liberty by again harassing
and threatening the victim, leading to her suicide and registration of a subsequent criminal case u/s 108 BNS.

Headnotes
3 All. Veer Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
37
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 183, 483(3) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 -
ss. 74, 108, 115(2) - Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - ss. 7/8 - Bail
cancellation - Misused of bail liberty - Harassment of minor victim - Suicide - Breach of bail
conditions - Justified - An FIR was lodged against the accused alleging harassment and
molestation of informant's minor daughter in connection with offences u/ss. 74, 115(2) BNS and
ss. 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, pursuant to which the accused was
granted bail by High Court subject to certain conditions - Subsequently, it was alleged that after
release on bail, the accused again harassed, intimidated and misbehaved with the victim, as a
result whereof she committed suicide on the intervening night of 25/26.07.2025, leading to
registration of a subsequent case u/s 108 BNS against the accused - Alleging deliberate violation
of bail conditions and misuse of liberty, the informant instituted the instant proceedings seeking
cancellation of bail.

Held: It was shown that after released on bail in the earlier case, the opposite party no.2 again started
harassing the daughter of informant/ applicant and did cherkhani with her and he has threatened her and
resultantly on the night of 25/ 26.07.2025 she committed suicide - In that regard a case was registered
against opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2025, u/s 108 BNS - It was shown that in the second case after
investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against opposite party no.2 - Thus, prima facie the allegations
made in the subsequent case u/s 108 BNS have been substantiated during investigation - From the conduct of
opposite party no.2 and facts of the case, it is apparent that opposite party no.2 has misused the liberty of
bail granted to him in Case Crime No.61 of 2025 vide order dated 05.06.2025, passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15679 of 2025 - There is sufficient material to indicate that opposite party
no.2 has deliberately breached the conditions of bail and thus, a case for cancellation of bail granted is made
out - Bail cancellation application allowed, direction to surrender before the court concerned. [Paras 18, 19]
(E-13)

Case Law Cited
State (Delhi Administration) s. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411; Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4
SCC 481; Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi
(2001) 4 SCC 280; CBI, Hyderabad v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others (2011) 5 SCC 296; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508; State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mahimananda Mishra and Ors. (2018)
10 SCC 516; Seema Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10; Victim 'X' v. State
of Bihar & Anr. 2025 INSC 877; Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012

List of Keywords
Bail cancellation; ss. 108, 74 BNS; ss. 7/8 POCSO Act; s. 183 BNSS; Misuse of bail liberty; Violation of bail
conditions; Harassment; Molestation; Minor victim; Cherkhani; Threatening the victim; Suicide; Abetment of
suicide; Supervening circumstances; Fair trial; Direction to surrender before court; Anticipatory bail; Bail
cancellation application allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation
Application No. - 363 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 15679 of 2025 in
relation to Crime No.61 of 2025, Police Station - Kudhfatehgarh, District- Sambhal.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant(s):
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Abhinav Mishra, Ankit Kumar, Mata Achal Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Shrawan Kumar Pandey, Vinay Mishra

Advs. for the Opposite Party(s)
Aushim Luthra, G.A., Harishchandra Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This application has been filed on behalf of informant under Section 483(3) BNSS for
cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 Vineet by this Court vide order dated
05.06.2025, passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 15679 of 2025 in relation to Crime
No.61 of 2025, under Sections 74, 115(2) BNS and Section 7/ 8 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Kudhfatehgarh, District- Sambhal.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the daughter of applicant was
harassed and molested by the opposite party no.2 and in that regard applicant has lodged a first
information report on 06.04.2025, vide Crime No.61 of 2025, under Sections 74 BNS and Section
7/8 POCSO Act against opposite party no.2 Vineet. In that matter, the opposite party no.2 Vineet
was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025, subject to certain conditions. It was
submitted that after opposite party no.2 was released on bail, he again started harassing the
daughter of applicant and he did cherkhani and threatened her and resultantly on the night of
25/26.07.2025 the daughter of applicant committed suicide. In that regard a complaint was made to
the police and first information report was registered on 29.07.2025, under Section 108 BNS
against the opposite party No.2. Learned counsel has referred the conditions, subject to which the
opposite party no.2 was granted bail by this Court in aforesaid case and submitted that the opposite
party no.2 has violated conditions of bail and misused the liberty of bail, he did cherkhani and
threatened the victim and consequently, victim/ daughter of applicant committed suicide and thus a
case for cancellation of bail is made out. It was submitted that in Case Crime No.147 of 2025,
under Section 108 BNS, after investigation police have already submitted charge-sheet. In that
matter, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already declined to grant anticipatory bail to the
opposite party no.2. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a case for cancellation of
bail is made out.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that
the opposite party no.2 has never misused the liberty of bail. It was stated that in earlier case the
victim has denied the allegations of molestation in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS
and due to that reason she was harassed and pressurized by her family members and she has
committed suicide due to that reason. Regarding alleged harassment of victim by the opposite party
no.2, no complaint was made to the police by the informant. Even the specific details like date and
time of incidents of alleged harassment or cherkhani have not been mentioned. Merely a general
and vague allegation has been made that after opposite party no.2 was released on bail, he has
harassed and threatened the victim. Referring to first information report of above referred Crime
No.147 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, it was submitted that there is no evidence that applicant
has abetted or instigated the victim to commit suicide. Even otherwise the consequences of the
3 All. Veer Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
39
alleged second case under section 108 BNS have to be faced by the applicant in the trial of said
case. There is no credible evidence that opposite party no.2 has misused the liberty of bail or
violated the conditions of bail and thus no case for cancellation of bail is made out.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that considerations and parameters by a Court while granting a bail are
different than those of cancellation of bail. This aspect has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411, wherein Hon'ble
Court had an occasion to consider an order dated 11.04.1978 passed by Delhi High Court rejecting
Delhi Administration's application for cancellation of bail of respondent Sanjay Gandhi. Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that rejection of bail, when bail applied is one thing; cancellation of bail
already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to
cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves review of a decision
already made and can, by and large, be permitted only, if, by reason of supervening circumstances,
it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom during the
trial.

7. In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481, it was observed that grounds for
cancellation of bail under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under
Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) accused misuses his liberty by
indulging in similar criminal activity, (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. It was also
held that above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. Rejection of bail stands on one footing
but cancellation of bail is a harsh order since it interferes with liberty of individual and must not be
lightly resorted to.

8. In Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Court observed that
rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted, has to be
dealt with and considered on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail, already granted. Court further said that
generally speaking grounds of cancellation of bail, broadly i.e. illustrative and not exhaustive are :
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (ii) evasion
or attempt to evade due course of justice; (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any
manner; (iv) Satisfaction of Court, on the basis of material placed on record of possibility of
accused absconding. Hon'ble Court also reminded that 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 concession
of bail during trial.

9. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Court said that while
granting bail, nature of accusations, severity of punishment, if accusation entails a conviction,
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nature of evidence in support of the accusations should be kept in mind. Further, reasonable
apprehensions of witnesses being tampered with or apprehension of there being a threat for
complainant also need be weighed by Court. No discussion of entire evidence to form an opinion
whether evidence would established guilt beyond reasonable doubt is expected at the stage of
considering matter of bail but prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge must be there.
Lastly, Court should also consider whether prosecution has element of genuineness or there is some
fragility. In case of any doubt as to genuineness, normal course is to grant bail. To the same effect
are the observation made in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 525.

10. In CBI, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others (2011) 5 SCC 296, the
Court observed:

"....that there is difference between yardstick 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."

11. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014)16 SCC 508, bail was granted to accused for
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 IPC
on the ground of parity as another accused Ashok was already enlarged on bail. The wife of
deceased filed appeal for setting aside order of bail granted by this Court. The Court considered
various earlier authorities and held as under :

"...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 and have not been taken note of bail 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 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."

12. In State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Mahimananda Mishra and Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 516,
the accused was granted bail by High Court and it was set aside by Supreme Court. The Apex
Court observed that accused was a powerful and influential person in his locality and even
Investigating Officer apprehends that he may influence witnesses by intimidating them and this
may influence trial by creating fear in the minds of witnesses. Court also looked into past attempt
of accused to evade process of law and then found that order of grant of bail was not proper and it
was set aside.

13. In Seema Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 10, it was
observed that gravity of offence is a relevant factor but not the sole ground to deny bail if there are
other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail.
3 All. Veer Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
41

14. In the case of Victim 'X' v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2025 INSC 877, while setting aside
the order granting bail to a person accused of committing grave offences, inter alia, under the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Apex Court
observed as follows: "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."

15. In case of Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338, it was held that in case after grant of
bail, in case the accused has committed breaches of terms and conditions on which bail is granted
or if he has otherwise misconducted himself, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise power
under Section 439(2) of CrPC to cancel the bail.

16. Thus, it is well settled that bail granted to an accused may be cancelled, where it is shown
that such accused has misused his liberty by indulging in criminal activity or attempts to tamper
with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or on the grounds of like nature. Though, as
stated above, conditions and parameters by a Court while granting a bail are different than those of
cancellation of bail but the courts have evolved certain broad principles, wherein bail granted to an
accused can be cancelled. Bail granted to an accused may also be cancelled if reason of
supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain
his freedom during bail. Where an accused has been enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions
and it is shown that such accused has substantially and deliberately violated such conditions, such
bail / anticipatory bail could be cancelled.

17. In the present matter it appears from record that the opposite party no.2 / accused used to
harass the minor girl of informant and he did 'cherchar' with her and she was also assaulted. In that
connection a case was registered against him on 06.04.2025 vide Crime No.61 of 2025, under
Sections 74 BNS and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. In that matter, the opposite party no.2 Vineet was
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025, subject to the following conditions:-

"(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii). The applicant shall not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii). The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted.

(iv). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court.

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in
accordance with law."

18. It was shown that after released on bail in that case, the opposite party no.2 Vineet again
started harassing the daughter of informant/ applicant and did cherkhani with her and he has
threatened her and resultantly on the night of 25/ 26.07.2025 she committed suicide. In that regard
a case was registered against opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2025, under Section 108 BNS. It was
shown that in this second case after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against opposite
party no.2. Thus, prima facie the allegations made in the subsequent case under Section 108 BNS
have been substantiated during investigation. From the conduct of opposite party no.2 and aforesaid
facts, it is apparent that opposite party no.2 Vineet has misused the liberty of bail granted to him in
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Crime No.61 of 2025 vide order dated 05.06.2025, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.15679 of 2025. There is sufficient material to indicate that opposite party no.2 has
deliberately breached the conditions of said bail and misused the liberty of bail and thus, a case for
cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 05.06.2025 is made out.

19. In view of aforesaid, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2/ accused Vineet vide order
dated 05.06.2025, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15679 of 2025 in relation
to Case Crime No.61 of 2025, under Section 74 BNS and Section 7/ 8 POCSO Act, is hereby
cancelled. The opposite party no.2/ accused Vineet is directed to surrender before the court
concerned within a period of two weeks from today.

20. The bail cancellation application is allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 42
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2198 of 2026

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar &
Anr. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants / accused of offences
under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act were entitled to anticipatory bail u/s 482 BNSS,
particularly when the anticipatory bail application had been filed directly before the High Court without first
approaching the Sessions Court, and when serious allegations of penetrative sexual assault upon minor
victims had been levelled against them.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s. 351(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss.
173(4), 180, 183 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - ss. 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16
, 17, 29, 127(2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 225 - Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability of -
Direct Approach High Court - Special / Extraordinary Circumstances - The instant criminal
anticipatory bail application u/s 482 BNSS was instituted by the applicants, apprehending arrest
in Case Crime No. 58 of 2026 registered at Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, u/s 351(3)
of B.N.S and various provisions of POCSO Act relating to alleged penetrative sexual assault upon
two victim boys - The FIR came to be lodged pursuant to an order passed by learned Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Prayagraj on an application u/s 173(4) BNSS moved by first informant, who
claimed to be the guardian of victims - The prosecution alleged that the victims were subjected
to repeated sexual assault at the Ashram and camp premises connected with applicant no.1
during the period spanning Mahakumbh 2025 and Magh Mela 2026 - The applicants, however,
denied the allegations and contended that the prosecution case suffered from material