In the case titled Haribansh Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Others (Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 130 of 2022), the Allahabad High Court dismissed a bail cancellation application on July 28, 2025. The plea sought to cancel the bail granted to the second opposite party in a serious criminal matter involving charges like murder and rioting. However, due to the applicant’s persistent non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the case, the Court declined to entertain the application.
Background of the Case
The bail cancellation was sought against the order dated April 27, 2020, in relation to Case Crime No. 51 of 2019 registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, and 34, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The incident was under the jurisdiction of Shahganj Police Station, Jaunpur.
Read also:- Court Enforces Non-Compete Clause Despite Termination Claims in High-Stakes Logistics Dispute
The application for cancellation was filed on March 30, 2022. Since then, several hearing dates passed, including September 15, 2023, January 11, 2024, and July 18, 2025, but the applicant’s counsel consistently failed to appear. Even on the revised call on the final date, no one appeared from the applicant's side.
“Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.”
– Justice Krishan Pahal
The Court noted that repeated adjournments and non-appearance were not only professional misconduct but also an abuse of judicial process. The judge emphasized that pending bail cancellation applications should not be allowed to linger without valid reasons, especially when they waste valuable judicial time.
Read also:- Supreme Court Dismisses SRA’s Appeal Over Delay in Resolution Plan Implementation
The Court strongly referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal (2021) 12 SCC 612, which discouraged routine adjournments and advocated for timely justice. It also cited its own earlier ruling in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta, criticizing frivolous litigation that drains court resources.
Important Highlights from the Judgment:
“Valuable Court time, which is required for serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation.”
– Allahabad High Court
The judgment stressed that the judiciary operates under resource constraints, and its time must not be consumed by cases lacking seriousness or legal merit. The absence of any justification from the applicant showed that the case was being pursued without seriousness and had become infructuous with time.
Read also:- Orissa High Court Rejects Bail Plea in Rape Case: Victim Yet to be Examined
The Court clarified that just because a bail cancellation plea is pending does not grant any automatic right to the applicant.
Grounds for Cancelling Bail – Not Applicable in This Case:
The Court listed valid scenarios under which bail may be cancelled:
- If the accused repeats the same offense
- If investigation is hampered
- If evidence is tampered
- If the accused flees the country or goes underground
- If the accused threatens witnesses or engages in revenge
- If the bail order was illegal or based on suppressed facts
“The instant case does not fall under any of the aforesaid categories.”
– Justice Krishan Pahal
Read also:- SC Grants Concurrent Sentence to 78-Year-Old in POCSO Case
Since none of the above conditions were met in this case, the Court found no justification to interfere with the bail already granted.
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court declines to entertain this bail cancellation application. The application is, accordingly, rejected.”
– Order dated July 28, 2025
The Court instructed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the relevant court or authority without delay.
Case Title: Haribansh Dubey vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. 130 of 2022