In Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 355 of 2025, Nikhil Kumar v. State of U.P. & Another, the Allahabad High Court held that bail cannot be challenged by a stranger who is unconnected to the original criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that only the victim, informant, or a person directly involved in the same case has the legal right to seek cancellation of bail. Since the applicant was not related to the FIR in which bail was granted, the Court rejected the plea and imposed costs for abusing judicial process.
Factual Background
The State Trial S.T. No. 806 of 2014 (State vs. Amir & Others) arose from Case Crime No. 1310 of 2012, registered at P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. In this case, the accused Amir (opposite party no. 2) had been granted bail on 16.03.2016 by the High Court.
Nearly nine years later, the present cancellation application was moved not by the informant or a victim of that original case, but by a completely unrelated person who alleged that the same accused later murdered his father in another incident.
The applicant’s case was that:
- Amir was granted bail in 2016 in the 2012 murder case.
- He allegedly committed another murder in 2017 — this time of the applicant’s father.
- Therefore, the earlier bail should now be cancelled.
No connection existed between the applicant and the original 2012 case. The entire argument rested on post-bail conduct of the accused in a different FIR, and on the applicant’s apprehension that if bail is re-granted in the later case, the accused might commit further offences.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant asserted:
- The accused murdered his father on 09.11.2017, after being released on bail in the earlier case.
- An FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 3080 of 2017, and the accused was again granted bail in 2019.
- That bail was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 999 of 2022 and remanded for reconsideration.
- Since the accused allegedly had 23 criminal cases, he is a habitual offender.
- Therefore, the bail granted in the earlier case should now be cancelled to prevent future criminal acts.
The thrust of the argument was that post-bail conduct in another case should justify revocation of bail in the older case. The applicant contended that he had a right to intervene because he was personally aggrieved by the accused’s conduct.
Response of Opposite Party No. 2
Counsel for the accused strongly opposed the application and raised core legal objections:
- Applicant has no locus standi — he is neither the complainant, victim, witness, nor an accused in the present case.
- The applicant is neither a witness nor an aggrieved person and does not fall within the category of complainant or victim as contemplated under Section 301 and Section 2(wa) of the CrPC/ BNSS Section 2(y) and 338 BNSS, the law makes it clear that only a person who has suffered injury, loss, or harm in that very case is entitled to participate in proceedings or challenge bail—an outsider has no locus to intervene.
- Merely being a victim in another offence does not confer standing to challenge bail in an unrelated matter.
- The bail in the applicant’s own FIR (2017 case) is already under reconsideration as directed by the Supreme Court — hence double proceedings are unnecessary.
- The present petition is nothing more than an attempt to abuse process and harass the accused.
Issue Before the Court
The High Court identified one primary legal question:
- Can a person who is a stranger to a criminal case move an application to cancel bail granted in that case based on events arising from an unrelated incident?
Court’s Reasoning
1. Applicant Not a “Victim” Under Law
The court held that the applicant suffered injury in a different case, not the one in which bail was originally granted. Therefore:
He does not fall within the statutory definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
Victim rights — such as right to oppose bail, appeal against acquittal — are confined to the same case, not transferable across unrelated proceedings.
2. Criminal Proceedings Cannot Entertain Foreigners to the Case
The court stated:
No application can be entertained by any foreigner in a criminal proceeding.
Only parties directly connected — complainant, informant, victim, prosecution — have the right to intervene. Allowing outsiders would open floodgates to vindictive litigation, hindering the criminal justice machinery.
3. Application Filed With Vengeance, Not Justice
The court observed that the applicant filed the cancellation motion apparently out of anger or vengeance because he believed the accused had killed his father later. However:
Criminal courts are not arenas for settling private scores.
Using judicial forums as tools of retaliation or pressure is impermissible.
4. Advocate’s Role Criticised
A rare but important observation in the judgment is the court’s remark that the advocate should have advised the client instead of facilitating the misuse of the court process. Filing baseless applications wastes judicial time and goes against the professional duty of an advocate, who is also an officer of the court.
The order remarked that the counsel should have dissuaded such a filing instead of permitting litigation without merit.
Final Order
| Final Outcome | Details |
|---|---|
| Application Status | Rejected |
| Reason | Applicant is stranger to the case, no locus |
| Costs Imposed | ₹25,000/- to High Court Legal Services Authority |
| Compliance Date | Within two weeks |
| Next Listing | 09.12.2025 for compliance review |
Conclusion
Allahabad High Court has decisively reaffirmed a foundational rule — bail cancellation cannot be sought by anybody other than parties connected to the case. Mere personal grievance arising from events in a different FIR does not grant standing. Criminal justice cannot be swayed by vengeance or emotional retaliation, and the system must remain immune to such misuse.
By imposing ₹25,000 cost for filing a frivolous application, the court sent a strong deterrent message reinforcing accountability, professional ethics, and judicial discipline.
The ruling strengthens procedural fairness, draws a clear boundary for victim rights, and safeguards bail jurisprudence from unintended weaponisation.