Uttarakhand High Court
Khoob Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Cancellation Application No.11 of 2024
Khoob Singh .............Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyanmati Kushwaha, Advocates for respondent
no.2.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the
respondent no.2 (“the accused”) in FIR No.62 of 2024, under
Sections 147, 307, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the first FIR”).
2. According to the first FIR, in which, the accused was
granted bail, the co-accused Fardeen and Rauf wanted to forcibly
remove the victim and took her on the motorcycle. The victim
resisted to it. After a while, the co-accused Fardeen attacked the
victim with a sharp edged weapon, due to which, she sustained
injuries. The victim was saved by the persons, who had gathered at
the spot. The FIR records that the accused Aakib and the other co-
accused were exhorting the co-accused Fardeen to kill the victim.
3. The bail cancellation application has been moved on
the ground that the accused was granted bail by this Court on
24.05.2024. Thereafter, on 25.05.2024, at about 11:30 p.m., when
the applicant was asleep in his house, he heard the noise of beating
of drums, etc.; when he peeped outside his house, he noticed that
the accused along with the other persons were shouting religious
2
slogans, dancing and, thereafter, the accused Aakib threatened the
applicant to compromise the case or else to face the dire
consequences. The FIR No.253 of 2024, under Sections 195-A, 506
IPC was lodged by the applicant against the accused and others on
27.05.2024 at Police Station, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar (“the second FIR”).
4. According to the applicant, he was under tremendous
threat as the accused is directly and indirectly threatening the
witnesses to face the dire consequences if they adduce evidence
against him. The accused Aakib has filed objections to it. According
to it, with regard to taking a procession on 25.05.2024, police had
earlier lodged an FIR on 27.05.2024, under Section 147, 188, 268,
290, 34 IPC against 12 persons, in which FIR, the accused was not
named. According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in
the second FIR, lodged at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar by the applicant. It is the case of the accused that the
instant bail cancellation application has been filed on the basis of
false and concocted facts.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after
release on bail in the first FIR on 24.05.2024, the accused took out
the procession and at the outside of the applicant, they shouted
religious slogans, drums were beaten, they danced and, thereafter,
the accused threatened the applicant to compromise the case or
face dire consequences.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3
7. It may be noted that the first FIR was lodged by the
applicant on the ground that his daughter was attacked by the co-
accused Fardeen and the accused Aakib and others, made
exhortation at that stage to kill the daughter of the applicant. It is
argued that the witnesses in the first FIR are under tremendous
threat. Their life has become miserable because earlier also, in the
year 2022, the accused Aakib and others had committed an
offence, of which, FIR No.420 of 2022 (“the 2022 FIR”) was lodged
at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
8. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the 2022
FIR was falsely recorded against the accused and his family
members. He submits that the applicant is a very powerful man; he
has threatened the entire family of the accused; in the year 2022,
in fact, the applicant and his family members had entered in the
house of the accused; at that time the accused had sought the
assistance of the Police Station, but they were not assisted by the
police, therefore, an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) was filed then, which was
treated as a complaint.
9. It is admitted that based on the 2022 FIR the trial is
also pending against the accused and others.
10. Learned counsel for the accused submits that, in fact,
police had earlier lodged the FIR No.252 of 2024 (“the third FIR”) on
27.05.2024 at 08:26 p.m. against 12 persons with regard to taking
a procession without permission. He would submit that in the third
FIR, the accused Aakib is not named. It is argued that post lodging
4
of the third FIR by the police, the applicant lodged second FIR, so
as to further detain the accused, which is false. He submits that
mere filing of an FIR may not be a ground to cancel the bail. He
submits that even if the charge-sheet is filed, it is without any
evidence.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the
second FIR lodged by the applicant, charge-sheet has already been
filed and the accused Aakib has already been summoned to answer
the accusation under Section 506 IPC.
12. Learned State Counsel submits that in the second FIR,
police has investigated the matter and witnesses have supported
the case of the applicant and charge-sheet has been filed, in which,
cognizance had already been taken.
13. Personal liberty is one of the rights, which is
constitutionally protected. A person may not be deprived of his
liberty without procedure established by law. There are various
principles which govern the field of grant of bail. The consideration
for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are quite distinct.
14. In the case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2004)2 SCC 362, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that, ” It is, therefore, clear that when a person to
whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the
course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or
witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar
activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial,
5
bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one
footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it
takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be
lightly resorted to.”
15. In the case of Shiv Mohan Kapoor Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others and connected matters, (2012)11 SCC 632, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the earlier judgments, in
which, principles have been laid down for cancellation of bail and in
para 21 and 22 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“21. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 17 as
under: (SCC p. 30)“17. … In an application for cancellation, conduct subsequent
to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone
are relevant.”
22. In Anil Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 425 :
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 565] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para
12 as under: (SCC p. 427)“12. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent is an
advocate. Being an advocate he is in a commanding position
and standing in the society. Keeping in view his position in the
background, a reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with or won over, coerced, threatened or intimidated
by using his influence and position cannot be ruled out.””
16. In the case of X Vs. State of Telangana and another,
(2018)16 SCC, 511 also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed
the principle of law on this aspect and observed as follows:-
14. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised
the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case
at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been
granted. In adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned
Judges of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat
6Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]
observed that : (SCC pp. 350-51, para 4)
“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.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Admittedly, in the year 2022 also, an FIR was lodged
against the accused and others under Sections 323, 341, 452, 504,
506 IPC. The copy of the 2022 FIR is Annexure No.1 to the bail
cancellation application. It has been argued on the behalf of the
accused that, in fact, in the year 2022, it is the applicant and his
family members, who attacked the accused and his family
members, but the report of the accused Aakib’s family was not
lodged. But, a complaint is pending consideration against the
applicant and his family members.
18. The first FIR is FIR No.62 of 2024, under Sections 147,
307, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC at Police Station Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar. According to it, the co-accused
7Fardeen had attacked injured Pooja on her head. They wanted to
forcibly take away Pooja with them on a motorcycle and Pooja did
resist their attack. The FIR records that, in fact, the accused Aakib
was also exhorting to kill the injured.
19. The Court had granted bail to the accused in the first
FIR on 24.05.2024. After grant of bail to the accused Aakib, a
procession was taken out in the locality with beating of drums, etc.
and its video was circulated on the social media. Therefore, the
police themselves had lodged the third FIR number 252 of 2024 at
Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar against 12
persons and the perusal of the FIR reveals that the accused Aakib
was not named in that FIR. But, on the same date, second FIR was
lodged by applicant and it records that the accused Aakib along
with some other persons took a procession in his locality beating
drums and shouting religious slogans, dancing, singing and near
the house of the applicant, the accused Aakib commanded the
crowd to be silent and, thereafter, he threatened the applicant to
compromise or to face dire consequences. In the second FIR, after
investigation, it is stated that the charge-sheet has been filed on
which cognizance has been taken against the accused. The
cognizance order and charge-sheet have been tendered by the
learned counsel for the applicant, at the time of hearing of the bail
cancellation application. Let it be taken on record.
20. How far the second FIR goes? It shall fall for scrutiny
during trial. But, before the applicant had lodged the second FIR
against the accused Aakib and others on 27.05.2024, the police
had already lodged the third FIR against 12 persons with regard to
8taking a procession in the night, beating drums and circulating
video on social media. The third FIR was lodged by the police on
their own. It is, thereafter, the applicant had lodged the second FIR.
21. Bails once granted may not be lightly interfered on
oral allegations only. Perhaps generally bail is not cancelled. But, in
the instant matter, the things are different. The accused Aakib was
granted bail on 24.05.2024 in the first FIR. On 25.05.2024, a
procession was taken out in the city, of which, the third FIR was
lodged by the police. On the same day i.e. 27.05.2024, the
applicant lodged an FIR against the accused and others that it is
the accused, who had threatened the applicant in a procession to
compromise or to face the dire consequences. It definitely amounts
to threatening the witnesses and interference with the course of
justice and it was done post grant of bail. Under the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a
ground to cancel the bail granted to the accused Aakib.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
view that the bail cancellation application deserves to be allowed.
23. The bail cancellation application is allowed.
24. The bail granted to the accused Aakib on 24.05.2025 in
FIR No.62 of 2024, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 354, 452, 504,
506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar is
hereby cancelled.
25. Let the accused Aakib surrender in the concerned court
within next three days. In case, he fails to do so, the Court
9requests the court concerned to issue Non Bailable Warrants, so
that the accused Aakib may be arrested and send to the judicial
custody.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.04.2026
Sanjay
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f54KANOJIA
a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A087
CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2026.04.24 10:21:16 +05’30’