Saurabh Jaisawal v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 356 of 2025

Court No. - 66 (Sr. No.37 out of 150) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3The present bail cancellation application has been filed to set-aside the bail order dated 18.2.2025 granted to opposite party no.2 with regard to Case Crime No.555 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64, 142, 351(2), 115(2), 61(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5272 of 2025 (Jai Singh Yadav vs. State of UP and 3 Others).

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the opposite party no.2 has misused the liberty of bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated

18.2.2025. The opposite party no.2 had threatened the victim and the informant by sending indecent messages and threatening messages from his mobile no.8968477058, which is but evident from Annexure no.8 to the affidavit filed with the bail cancellation application.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said threatening messages had a chilling effect on the victim and informant, as such, the bail order dated 18.2.2025 granted to opposite party no.2 is liable to be set-aside. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Rai, Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Yadav, G.A. Saurabh Jaisawal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the bail cancellation application on the ground that the victim herself had threatened the opposite party no.2, but he could not file the said messages. An application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by opposite party no.2 against the applicant herein as he had fired at him, as such, the present bail cancellation application is liable to be rejected. Although, he could not dispute that there was no gunshot injury sustained by opposite party no.2.

¶7After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the messages sent by opposite party no.2 to the informant and victim, which have been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit, the Court is of the view that the bail granted to opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled. The bail cancellation application is allowed.

¶8Consequently, the order dated 18.2.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5272 of 2025 (Jai Singh Yadav vs. State of UP and 3 Others) granting bail to opposite party no.2-Jai Singh Yadav with regard to Case Crime No.555 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64, 142, 351(2), 115(2), 61(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh is hereby set-aside.

¶9However, two weeks' time is granted to opposite party no.2 to surrender before the Trial Court concerned from today.

¶10Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned forthwith.

March 18, 2026 Vikas Verma BAILC No. 356 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad