Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost for ‘Vindictive’ Bail Cancellation Plea; Says Only a Statutory ‘Victim’ Can Seek Cancellation

Coming down heavily on the ‘abuse’ of the legal process to settle personal scores, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that only a ‘victim’ within the meaning of the CrPC and BNSS can seek cancellation of bail granted to an accused. Thus, dismissing a bail cancellation plea moved by a person unconnected to the original crime, a Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the applicant as it termed the plea ‘frivolous’ and ‘vindictive’.

The Court noted that the applicant does not fall within the statutory concept of ‘victim’, which is confined to the person who has suffered loss or injury in that very case (or their guardian/legal heir), to seek cancellation of bail. The Court further clarified that the expanded victim rights regime introduced under the BNSS/CrPC was meant to empower victims in their own cases and not to allow a victim from one matter to intervene vindictively in an unrelated case.

Facts Leading to the Plea

Briefly put, one Nikhil Kumar (applicant) moved the High Court praying to set aside a bail order granted on March 16, 2016 to the accused (Opposite Party No. 2) in a 2012 murder case. The applicant alleged that after being released on bail in the 2012 case, the accused committed another murder on November 9, 2017, and this time, he killed the applicant’s father.

The opposite party was granted bail in the 2017 murder case in 2019; however, that bail order was set aside by the Supreme Court, which remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. Consequently, the applicant argued that the accused had misused the liberty granted in 2016 and, having a long criminal history of 23 cases, his bail should be cancelled to prevent further offences. It may be noted that the opposite party no. 2 is presently in jail, as is evident from the report dated November 21, 2025, received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

The Court remarked that Applicant Had No Locus 

The counsel for the accused opposed the plea arguing that the applicant had nothing to do with the instant case (the 2012 crime). It was submitted that the applicant is neither a witness nor an aggrieved person and does not fall within the category of complainant/victim under Section 301 or Section 2(wa) of CrPC. It was further submitted that though it is true that opposite party no.2 is wanted in the murder of the applicant’s father, he has nothing to do with the 2012 case.

Accepting the submissions, Justice Pahal observed that the applicant has no locus to seek cancellation of bail because he is a stranger to the present proceedings.

The bench said: “The expanded victim rights regime was meant to empower victims in their own cases, not to allow a victim from one matter to intervene vindictively in an unrelated case, and therefore an application moved out of vengeance or personal vendetta should not be entertained as it would subvert justice rather than aid proper adjudication.”

The Court added that legal machinery cannot be exploited for personal retribution and that the courts cannot be permitted to be used as a ‘conduit’ to settle personal scores. The bench noted that since the applicant was neither an informant nor a victim in the 2012 case, he was an “alien” to the instant case and hence, no application can be entertained by any foreigner in a criminal proceeding.

Court’s Displeasure with Advocate’s Conduct

Significantly, the High Court also expressed displeasure regarding the role of the legal counsel in filing such petitions. The Court noted that the advocate had not fulfilled the obligations owed to the Court by failing to dissuade the client from filing a ‘meritless’ bail cancellation application to conserve judicial time. The Court opined that presenting such a frivolous application amounts to an abuse of process. The Bench stressed that it is the duty of an advocate, as an officer of the Court, to ensure that baseless or vexatious proceedings do not clog the judicial system.

Thus, finding the application devoid of merit, the Court rejected the plea and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the applicant. The matter has been listed for compliance on December 9, 2025.

Case Title: Nikhil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another