UKHC010005882026

1

Judgment reserved on 29.07.2026

Delivered on 12.08.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Bail Cancellation Application No. 1 of 2026

Chandra Shekhar. …….Applicant.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

and another. ….…Respondents.

Present:

Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. S .K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The instant bail cancellation application is preferred by

the applicant Chandra Shekhar, son of Kesh Ram, under

Section 483 (3) of BNSS, 2023 for challenging the order dated

22.12.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramnagar,

District – Nainital whereby respondent no. 2 Mahesh Chandra

Tamta, son of Shankar Lal, who is facing trial for the offences

punishable under Section 307, 120 B read with Section 34 IPC,

arising out of FIR No. 395 of 2019, registered at Police Station –

Ramnagar, District – Nainital, is enlarged on bail.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that a first information

report was lodged by one Hemant Shekhar, son of present

applicant on 02.10.2019 bearing FIR No. 395 of 2019, registered

at Police Station – Ramnagar, District – Nainital against two

unknown persons for the offences punishable under Section 307

read with 34 IPC. This FIR was investigated and subsequently

on 12.01.2020, a charge sheet was filed against Irshad Ali,

Kamran Ahmad and Adnan Magrub. “Kamran” and “Adnan

Magrub” charge sheeted as an absconders. Subsequently,

another charge sheet 16 A of 2020 was also filed on 29.08.2020

against the respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under

UKHC010005882026

2

Section 307, 120B of IPC and thereafter, charges were framed on

18.12.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 307, 34,

120B of IPC.

3. Respondent no. 2, herein, who was charge sheeted,

approached this Court and preferred an application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. C482 No. 323 of 2020 in order to

challenge the charge sheet as well as the cognizance order,

however, the Coordinate Bench by judgment and order dated

05.08.2022 dismissed the petition, against which, a Special

Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6823 of 2022 was preferred

before the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Apex Court

disposed of the said SLP with liberty to take steps for discharge

in the appropriate proceedings.

4. Apart from this, the respondent no. 2 also preferred

Anticipatory Bail Application before this Court wherein

anticipatory bail was granted on 29.09.2023, but subsequently,

Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application was moved number

as ABCA No. 01 of 2025 and the Coordinate Bench cancelled

the anticipatory bail by order dated 25.06.2025, relevant extract

of which are being extracted herein below:

“3. As per the charge sheets dated 13.01.2020 and

29.08.2020, the Respondent No. 2 was arrayed as an

accused, alongside co-accused Adnan Marghoob, Kamran

Ahmad, and Irshad Ali. It is alleged that Respondent No.

2 conspired with Adnan and others, who in turn hired

the two assailants. Recovery of arms and the motorcycle

used in the offence was allegedly effected at the instance

of co-accused Adnan. Call Detail Records (CDRs), CCTV

footage, and other circumstantial material were also

collected during the investigation.

UKHC010005882026

3

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that

Respondent No. 2 absconded during the investigation

and failed to cooperate with the trial court proceedings,

resulting in the initiation of proceedings under Sections

82 and 83 CrPC. It is further contended that Respondent

No. 2 misused the liberty granted to him by this Court,

employed dilatory tactics, and persistently obstructed the

trial by filing frivolous applications.

5. It is pointed out that Respondent No. 2 did not cross-

examine prosecution witnesses despite repeated

opportunities and refused to cooperate with the trial

court’s directions. Even after the supply of documents

under Section 207 CrPC, Respondent No. 2 continued to

file fresh applications under Section 91 CrPC and sought

discharge under Section 227 CrPC, all of which were

dismissed.

6. It is urged that the conduct of Respondent No. 2

obstructs the course of justice and justifies cancellation of

the anticipatory bail granted earlier.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2

submits that the Respondent has abided by the conditions

of anticipatory bail and has appeared before the trial court

in compliance with the directions. It is argued that the

trial delays are not solely attributable to Respondent No.

2 and that he is within his legal rights to avail remedies

under the law, including seeking discharge and supply of

documents.

8. Learned Counsel also contends that no violation of any

express bail condition has occurred, and that cancellation

of bail at this stage would amount to pre-trial

UKHC010005882026

4

punishment. It is emphasized that the High Court had

previously considered all relevant facts, including the

charge sheet, while granting anticipatory bail.

9. The fundamental issue for consideration in the present

matter is whether Respondent No. 2, Mahesh Chandra

Tamta @ Mahesh Chandra Agri, has misused the liberty

granted to him by this Court vide order dated

29.09.2023, and whether the facts and circumstances

arising after the grant of anticipatory bail warrant its

cancellation under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

10. The factual matrix reflects that the FIR in question

relates to a serious offence under Section 307 IPC,

wherein the Applicant, an injured victim was shot in

broad daylight by two assailants allegedly acting on the

instructions of Respondent No. 2. The State has alleged a

criminal conspiracy between the Respondent and co-

accused, backed by documentary and electronic evidence,

including CDRs, CCTV footage, recovery memos, and

statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

11. The charge-sheet filed on 29.08.2020 specifically

names Respondent No. 2 as a conspirator who

orchestrated the attack on account of a land dispute. The

material on record, including disclosure statements and

corroborative witness testimony, prima facie connects the

Respondent to the offence. While this Court had, at the

relevant time, exercised its discretion to grant

anticipatory bail, the subsequent conduct of the

Respondent must now be tested on the anvil of fair trial

and judicial process.

UKHC010005882026

5

12. After securing anticipatory bail, Respondent No. 2

did not approach the trial court in a manner expected of a

person seeking equitable relief. The record reveals a

pattern of calculated delay. Although charges were

framed against him on 18.12.2024, his cross examination

of prosecution witnesses has either been avoided or

refused despite several opportunities.

13. The orders passed by the learned trial court clearly

record that the accused was afforded repeated

opportunities to cross-examine PW1, PW-2, and PW-3,

with full access to the judicial file; however, he declined to

avail the same. On 15.04.2024, 27.04.2024, and

17.05.2024, his Counsel expressly refused to cross-

examine the witnesses despite having complete access to

the records. Consequently, the trial court was constrained

to close the right of cross-examination.

14. While the right to a fair trial includes access to

prosecution documents under Section 207 CrPC, the

misuse of that right to obstruct proceedings cannot be

condoned. The record discloses that even after the Hon’ble

Court’s direction dated 16.05.2024 in Criminal Misc.

Application No. 694 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 adopted a

tactic of filing serial applications, citing the non-supply

of documents, and inconsistently expanding the list of

required documents between High Court and trial court

pleadings.

15. Respondent No. 2 then filed an application under

Section 91 CrPC for additional documents during the

stage of charge framing, which was dismissed as not

maintainable. Undeterred, he moved a discharge

application under Section 227 CrPC, and upon its

UKHC010005882026

6

rejection, filed two further applications under Section

340 CrPC and the Contempt of Courts Act on the same

date. Thereafter, he sought repeated adjournments to

avoid arguments even on those applications. This

conduct leaves no doubt that his participation in trial

proceedings is neither sincere nor bona fide.

16. Moreover, the certified order sheets of the trial court

show that Respondent No. 2 has sought exemption from

appearance on at least 10 occasions since 03.10.2023. The

Applicant has also placed on record photographs

suggesting that the Respondent was physically fit and

socially active during the period when the medical

exemption was claimed.

5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.06.2025 passed

by the Coordinate Bench in ABCA No. 01 of 2025, respondent

no. 2 approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing

Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 11619 of 2025 wherein

on 11.11.2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following

order:

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the High

Court vide order dated 29.09.2023 in a case pursuant to

FIR No. 395 of 2019, under Sections 307, 120-B and 34

of the IPC registered at Police Station Ramnagar,

District Nainital,.

3. The aforesaid order of anticipatory bail was cancelled

by the order impugned dated 25.06.2025 on one of the

grounds that the petitioner had been adopting dilatory

tactics and is not allowing the trial to proceed.

UKHC010005882026

7

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not

deem it proper to interfere with the bail cancellation order

passed by the High Court.

5. However, we permit the petitioner to co-operate with

the trial and not to adopt dilatory tactics and if the Court

is satisfied with the bonafides of the petitioner in

pursuing the trial, it will be open for the Trial Court to

consider the bail application, if any, moved afresh by the

petitioner after a period of three months.

6. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial

Court within a period of two weeks from today.

7. Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

6. Against the order dated 11.11.2025, respondent no. 2

moved a Misc. Application and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on

24.11.2025 passed the following order:

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The time allowed for surrendering to the applicant vide

order dated 11.11.2025 by this Court is extended by two

weeks and no more.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 300466/2025 is allowed and the

miscellaneous application stands disposed of.”

7. Subsequently, another Misc. Application No. 2442 of 2025

along with I.A. No. 313782 of 2025 was moved by respondent

no. 2 for extension of time from surrendering and on 11.12.2025,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order:

“1. Since the review petition filed by the

applicant/petitioner has already been dismissed by

UKHC010005882026

8

this Court, we find no substance in the present

miscellaneous application and the same stands

rejected.

2. However, the time granted to the

applicant/petitioner for surrendering stands

extended by a further period of one week from

today, whereupon, the bail application, if any, shall

be considered most expeditiously, in accordance

with law.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 313782/2025 and the

miscellaneous application stand dismissed.”

8. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 moved an application on

18.12.2025 through his counsel seeking permission to surrender

through video conferencing with this condition that such

surrender through video conferencing be treated to be valid

and his judicial custody to be treated as “Symbolic Custody” in

“Hospital”. In this application, respondent no. 2 also

highlighted his several ailments like he is unable to move by

enclosing certificate of Doctor. He also cited certain judgments

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Supreme Court’s

Guidelines of Video Conferencing. In addition to this, he also

give reference of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo

Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 05 of 2020 and also the Modal

Rules for Video Conferencing. This application was seriously

objected by the prosecution through ADGC (Criminal) who

filed the objection on 20.12.2025 by submitting that respondent

no. 2 is deliberately avoiding the Trial Court proceeding and

also not complying with the directions of Hon’ble Supreme

Court whereby he was granted sufficient time to surrender.

UKHC010005882026

9

9. Subsequently, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge refused to

grant permission to appear through V.C., by rejecting the

application since no supporting documents were placed.

10. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed an another application

seeking bail on 22.12.2025 along with discharge summary

report of Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital along with an

application for surrender by putting his presence in

Ambulance.

11. The learned Sessions Judge allowed both the applications

on the same date i.e. on 22.12.2025 by accepting his surrender

application and also enlarged him on bail.

12. Being aggrieved with the order granting bail to

respondent no. 2 instant bail cancellation application is moved

under Section 483 (3) on the ground that bail application moved

by respondent no. 2, was premature and as such grant of bail is

in complete disobedience of the order of Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 11.11.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 11619 of 2025

whereby the respondent no. 2 was directed to surrender within

two weeks and cooperate with the trial and not to adopt

dilatory tactics and if the Court is satisfied with the bonafides

of the petitioner in pursuing the trial, it will be open for the

Trial Court to consider the bail application, if any, moved

afresh after a period of three months.

13. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that

the trial court committed illegality while granting bail to the

respondent no. 2 on the first day of his surrender which

completely against the letter and spirit of the order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court dated 11.11.2025. Learned counsel further

argued that the Trial Court exceeded it’s power and jurisdiction

UKHC010005882026

10

while entertaining the bail application of respondent no. 2 on

the vary same day of surrender. It is further argued that the

respondent no. 2 was in fact, not suffering from any such

serious disease and at the most, he is suffering from piles

(haemorrhoids) which is not so serious and even as per

discharge summary of Hospital, respondent no. 2 was

discharged in a healthy condition and there was no serious

ailment and the trial court entertained his bail application in a

very haste manner by ignoring the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

14. Detailed objection has been filed by the respondent no. 2

by raising a preliminary objection that once the bail is granted,

it cannot be cancelled merely because superior court might

have taken a different view or because of the gravity of the

offence. It is contended in paragraph 3 of the objection that

cancellation of bail requires cogent material demonstrating,

misuse of bail, after released, on tempering with evidence or

witnesses or involvement in fresh criminal activity, flight risk

or bail order being so patently perverse as to be nullity in law.

In reference to the medical ailment, in paragraph 10 (ii) of the

objection, respondent no. 2 states as under:

“10 (ii) Medical Condition: Haemorrhoids in a chronic

or advanced stage can pause severe pain, rectal bleeding,

difficulty in movement, and inability to sit for prolonged

periods and apart from that he is suffering from Sciatica

pain, which result in the Sharp, burning, or electric

shock-like pain starting in the lower back or buttock,

radiating down the thigh and leg and is caused by

compression or irritation of the sciatic nerve, often from a

herniated disc (A "slipped" disc pressing on nerve roots)

resulting in the Narrowing of the spinal canal and

UKHC010005882026

11

Piriformis Syndrome. At the midnight of the 16.12.2025,

following the onset of acute sciatica pain, the Objector

required hospitalization for further medical evaluation

and treatment and was admitted to "Massh Manas,

Super Speciality Hospital, Noida". The objector is a Law

abiding citizen he has great respect towards the Hon'ble

Apex Court Decision and in compliance of the same on

17.12.2025 he had taken Discharge from the "Massh

Manas, Super Speciality Hospital, Noida" despite he had

having acute pain, still he opted to travel RAMNAGAR

for surrender in the compliance of order dated 11.12.2025

of Hon'ble Apex Court, but during travel his condition

got worst and there was excessive bleeding from

Haemorrhoids and pain He was taken in to emergency of

Susheela Tiwari Hospital on 17.12.2025 and got

admitted there, a government medical institution of the

same district, and the discharge summary forms a

contemporaneous record of a public authority carrying a

presumption of authenticity. The notation "satisfactory

on discharge" is standard clinical terminology indicating

stabilisation after treatment and does not diminish the

seriousness of the condition prior to admission. That on

22.12.2025 the objector has taken an discharge from the

hospital and had surrender before the court and after

getting bail due to his sever condition again admitted

KBR Hospital, Kashipur and on date fixed 23.12.2025

marked his attendance at Court and re-admitted on

26.12.2025 at "Massh Manas, Super Speciality Hospital,

Noida" and got discharged from there on 29.12.2025. The

Applicant has placed no medical opinion on record to

contradict the medical conditioning the answering

respondent, and any lay interpretation of the medical

UKHC010005882026

12

condition is legally untenable. It is also pertinent that the

learned Court, in its order, recorded that the Objector

was produced before the Court in an ambulance, which

further supports the genuine medical condition.”

15. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2,

submits that by the subsequent order of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 11.12.2025 all the previous orders passed on

11.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 are diluted, therefore, rider of the first

order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is reflected from

paragraph 5 will not come into the way and the trial court has

rightly grant bail to respondent no. 2 since in the last order

dated 11.12.2025 the Hon’ble Apex Court directed to surrender

within one week and the bail application, if any, shall be

considered most expeditiously in accordance with law. He

submits that since by the last order, Hon’ble Supreme Court

granted further one week time to surrender and simultaneously

directed to decide the bail application, if any, as expeditiously

as possible, therefore, the trial court has rightly enlarged the

respondent no. 2 on bail, since bail application was moved

immediately after surrender, which was allowed on the same

day, which is in conformity with the direction of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

16. In response to the arguments as advanced by Mr. Aditya

Singh, Mr. A. S. Rawat, learned Sr. Advocate for the applicant

submits that arguments as advanced by Mr. Aditya Singh are

completely misconceived. He submits that the three months

embargo on moving a regular bail application by the order of

Supreme Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 was a substantive

condition that remained entirely untouched by subsequent

UKHC010005882026

13

order since then was neither reviewed nor modified and remain

intact.

17. Mr. Rawat further argued that the order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court dated 11.11.2025 are in two folds. First relates to

surrender and second relates to embargo of moving regular bail

application after three months that too only after after

satisfaction of Trial Court whether respondent is sincere in

pursuing the trial court proceedings.

He submits that by the second order dated 24.11.2025 the

Hon’ble Supreme Court only extended time to surrender by

two weeks and subsequently, by last order dated 11.12.2025 one

week further time was granted to surrender. Mr. Rawat

submits that in last order dated 11.12.2025, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court clearly observed in paragraph 1 that review

petition has already been dismissed and in para 2 only a week’s

time was further granted to surrender and in such an

eventuality, the bail application, if any, shall be considered

most expeditiously. He submits that on close scrutiny of the

orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that embargo

in moving bail application by Supreme Court by it’s order

dated 11.11.2025 remain intact, which was neither recalled,

modified nor reviewed, which itself is reflected from paragraph

1 of the last order dated 11.12.2025.

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the record.

19. Argument as advanced by Mr. Aditya Singh , who

appears for respondent no. 2, is nothing but an attempt to

misinterpret the doctrine of merger and is completely

misconceived. The Hon’ble Supreme Court divides it ’s

UKHC010005882026

14

directions in two distinct compartments one is time limit for

surrender and another is restraining the respondent no. 2 from

seeking bail for a period of three months. So far as time line, as

fixed for filing of bail application after three months from

surrender was never been disturbed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. The direction issued by the last order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court is to decide the application for bail

expeditiously and it simply dictates for disposal. Thus, this

Court is of the firm opinion that the trial court committed

patent illegality in enlarging the respondent no. 2 on bail by

accepting his surrender application on the same day. Even

otherwise, final order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court explicitly

observed that review of the earlier order had been rejected and

as such three months waiting period for considering the bail

application shall remain undisturbed.

Furthermore, the direction of the Superior Court to decide

the application “expeditiously” cannot be construed as a license

to bypass the condition of maintainability. The term

“expeditiously” means to entertain legally maintainable

application and it cannot validate the application which is

completely premature. By entertaining and granting the regular

bail to respondent no. 2 prior to the expiry of three months, the

trial court has committed grave judicial error, misinterpreted

the clear mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in excess of

it’s jurisdiction. It is well settled law that non compliance of the

specific pre-condition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

undermines the judicial discipline and constitute a valid

ground for cancellation of bail.

UKHC010005882026

15

20. In view of the detailed discussion and reasons recorded

above, the instant Bail Cancellation Application is allowed with

the following direction:

i. The regular bail granted to the respondent no. 2

vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl.

Session Judge is recalled and cancelled with immediate

effect.

ii. The respondent no. 2 is directed to surrender

forthwith to the Trial Court failing which the police

authorities particularly the SSP concerned is directed to

take respondent no. 2 into custody immediately.

iii. The respondent no. 2 shall be at liberty to move a

fresh application for regular bail strictly upon expiration

of the three month period as originally mandated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

iv. On moving bail application on expiration of the

three months period as mandated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the concerned Trial Court shall decide

the bail application, after considering the bonafide of

respondent no. 2 in pursuing the Trial Court proceeding.

v. Registry shall send copy of this order to the

concerned Trial Court as well as to Senior Superintendent

of Police, Nainital for strict compliance.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

12.08.2026

SKS