NA528/1873/2025 of SURAJ NISHAD Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME AND 4 OTHERS on 18 December 2025

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To pass an order or direction thereby for quashing of bail cancellation order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Court no. 11, District Unnao, in Bail Cancellation Application No. 1846 of 2025, arising out Case Crime No. 447 of 2024, u/s 137(2), 64(1) BNS, section 3/4 POCSO Act & section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, police station Gangaghat, district Unnao."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was enlarged on bail in the crime in question by learned trial Court vide order dated 17.01.2025. A letter dated 24.06.2025 was written by Mr. Pramod

Kumar Mishra, Station House Officer, P.S. Gangaghat, Unnao, which was forwarded by the Circle Officer, City, Unnao on 25.06.2025 to learned Special Judge, Court No.11, Unnao with the averment that the victim of the crime in question is being threatened by the applicant, hence, on 07.06.2025, F.I.R. No. 336 of 2025 u/s 333, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), (dha) of SC/ST Act was lodged, and the accused violated the condition of bail, hence, the bail earlier granted to him may be cancelled.

5. The aforesaid letter dated 24.06.2025 written by Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra, Station House Officer, P.S. Gangaghat, Unnao is as under:-

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the aforesaid application was registered as application for bail cancellation, which is in violation of provisions of Para 19.40 of L.R. Manual as well as Section 483(3) B.N.S.S. and the impugned cancellation order has been passed. It is next submitted that the applicant has never given any threat to the complainant, but with the association of Station House Officer, new case has been registered. As per the legal provisions, the bail application is to be filed with the proper permission of the District Magistrate in accordance with the provisions mentioned in L.R. Manual, but in the present case, the letter was written by the Station House Officer to learned trial Judge and the same was treated as application for bail cancellation, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that the bail cancellation application is to be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 483(3) of B.N.S.S. read with provisions of Para 19.40 of L.R. Manual, as it was obligatory on the part of the Station House Officer to make a recommendation to the District Magistrate through the authorities for cancellation of bail, after that, it was to be filed by the District Government Counsel.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is undisputed by learned A.G.A. that as per the provisions of Section 483(3) of B.N.S.S. read with provisions of Para 19.40 of L.R. Manual, it is obligatory on the part of police authorities to forward recommendation to the District Magistrate for moving application for bail cancellation, but in the present case, no application was forwarded to the District Magistrate, rather a letter was written to the trial Judge. It is well settled that statutory provisions must be followed by the authorities. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the letter was wrongly written by the Station House Officer to the trial Judge and the same was treated as a bail cancellation application.

9. With the above observations, the present application is allowed. The order dated 17.09.2025 (supra) is set aside with liberty to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law. (Rajeev Singh,J.) December 18, 2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench