In a rather tense courtroom atmosphere on Monday, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a bail cancellation plea filed almost nine years after the original bail order, calling it “a misuse of judicial process.” Justice Krishan Pahal, who heard the matter in Court No. 67, delivered a sharp and candid order that left several lawyers exchanging quiet glances. The case centred on a long-standing murder trial from Ghaziabad, but the application itself came from someone the court labelled a “complete stranger” to the original case.
Background
The applicant, Nikhil Kumar, approached the court seeking cancellation of a 2016 bail order granted to one Amir, accused in a 2012 murder case (Case Crime No.1310/2012, P.S. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad). The twist, however, lay in the applicant’s argument: he claimed that Amir, after being released on bail in that old case, murdered his father in 2017. A separate FIR-Case Crime No.3080/2017-was indeed registered based on his complaint, and that matter is still being heard.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
Standing before the bench, Nikhil’s counsel argued that given the accused’s criminal history of 23 cases and the alleged post-bail murder, the earlier bail must be cancelled to avoid further harm.
The defence, however, took a firm stand. Counsel for opposite party no.2 insisted that Nikhil was “not even remotely connected” to the 2012 case. “He is neither a witness nor an informant,” counsel said, pointing out that the law permits only a ‘victim’ to seek such intervention.
Court’s Observations
Justice Pahal’s observations during the hearing were notably strong. At one point, the judge remarked, “The expanded victim rights regime cannot be allowed to become a weapon of personal vendetta.”
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The bench clarified that under CrPC (as amended in 2009) and the new BNSS 2023, the term victim strictly refers to someone who has suffered injury in the same case. Nikhil, the court noted, may be a victim in the 2017 case, but not in the 2012 matter.
Another striking remark came when the Court expressed displeasure with the conduct of the advocate who filed the plea. “The advocate has not fulfilled the obligations owed to the Court,” Justice Pahal said, observing that lawyers should prevent frivolous petitions instead of facilitating them.
The court also noted that the accused is already in jail as per the CJM Ghaziabad’s report, rendering the cancellation request even less meaningful.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Rejects RTI Activist's Plea Seeking Candidate's Exam Answer Script in KPSC
Decision
Concluding the hearing, the bench rejected the bail cancellation plea, labelling it “devoid of merits.” It imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the applicant, directing him to deposit the amount with the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The matter has been listed for compliance on 9 December 2025. With that, the court closed the issue, making it clear that such applications will not be entertained again.
Case Title: Nikhil Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Another
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 355 of 2025
Case Type: Bail Cancellation Application
Decision Date: 24 November 2025