The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Krishan Pahal has dismissed a bail cancellation application filed by a third party, ruling that a person who is “alien” to the criminal proceedings—neither an informant nor a victim in that specific case—has no locus standi to seek such relief. The Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the applicant for filing a “frivolous” application motivated by personal vendetta.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a person who is neither a victim, informant, nor witness in a specific criminal case has the locus standi (legal standing) to file an application seeking the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in that case, based on the ground that the accused allegedly committed a crime against the applicant’s family in a separate, subsequent incident.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Nikhil Kumar, approached the High Court seeking to set aside a bail order dated March 16, 2016. This bail had been granted to Opposite Party No. 2 (the accused) in connection with Case Crime No. 1310 of 2012 (S.T. No. 806 of 2014) under Sections 302 (murder) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments on Behalf of the Applicant: The counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, submitted that the applicant is an “aggrieved person.” The basis for this claim was that Opposite Party No. 2, after being released on bail in the 2012 case, allegedly murdered the applicant’s father on November 9, 2017. An FIR regarding this subsequent offence was registered as Case Crime No. 3080 of 2017.
The applicant contended that while Opposite Party No. 2 was granted bail in the 2017 murder case by the High Court in 2019, that order was set aside by the Supreme Court on July 18, 2022, and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration. The applicant argued that there is a likelihood of the accused being released on bail in the 2017 case, and if so, he might commit other offences, including the murder of the applicant. It was further submitted that the accused has a “long criminal history of 23 cases.”
Arguments on Behalf of Opposite Party No. 2: Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, vehemently opposed the application. He argued that the applicant has “nothing to do with the instant case” (Case Crime No. 1310 of 2012).
The defense submitted that the applicant is neither a witness nor a victim in the 2012 case as provided under Section 301 or Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). While acknowledging that the accused is wanted in the murder of the applicant’s father, the counsel argued that it is a separate matter. The application was termed “just a misuse of process of Court.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On Locus Standi and the Definition of ‘Victim’: Justice Krishan Pahal examined whether the applicant had the standing to intervene in the 2012 case. The Court observed that the applicant was “an alien to the instant Case Crime No. 1310 of 2012 as he is neither an informant nor a victim.”
The Court provided a strict interpretation of the statutory concept of a “victim,” observing:
“The applicant has no locus to seek cancellation of bail because he is a stranger to the present proceedings and 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) under the 2009 amendment to CrPC and its retention in BNSS 2023.”
On the Purpose of Victim Rights: The Court emphasized that victim rights are not intended to be used for personal vendetta in unrelated matters:
“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 courts cannot be permitted to be used as a conduit to settle personal scores.”
On the Conduct of Counsel: The Court expressed strong disapproval regarding the filing of the application, noting that the advocate failed to fulfill obligations owed to the Court by assisting in a meritless application instead of dissuading the client.
“It further conveys that presenting such a frivolous application amounts to an abuse of the process which disrupts the administration of justice, contrary to the duty of an advocate as an officer of the Court to ensure that baseless or vexatious proceedings do not clog the judicial system.”
Decision
The High Court held that “no application can be entertained by any foreigner in a criminal proceedings.” Consequently, the Court found no grounds to set aside the bail order granted to Opposite Party No. 2 in the 2012 case.
Order:
- The bail cancellation application was rejected as being “devoid of merits.”
- A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the applicant, Nikhil Kumar.
- The cost is to be deposited in the account of the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
The matter is listed for compliance on December 9, 2025.
Case Details
- Case Title: Nikhil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 355 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal
