Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Prachi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA
PRADESH : JABALPUR
Case No. M.Cr.C. No.2708/2021
Parties Name Mrs. Prachi
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others
Date of order 16.11.2021
Bench Constituted Justice Vivek Agarwal
Order passed by Justice Vivek Agarwal
Whether approved for Yes
reporting
Name of counsel for Shri K.K. Pandey, learned
parties counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Daniel, learned
Counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 to 5.
Law laid down 1. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for
an order directing cancellation of
the bail, already granted.
2. The concept of setting aside
the unjustified, illegal or perverse
order is totally different from the
concept of cancelling the bail on
the ground that accused has
misconducted himself or because
of some new facts requiring such
cancellation.
3. Applicant should first move
the Court concerned for
cancellation of bail bringing out
the circumstances as have been
mentioned in Annexure A-8 and
should not have approached this
Court directly.
2
Significant paragraph 6&7
numbers
ORDER
(16.11.2021)
This M.Cr.C. under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has been
filed seeking cancellation of bail order dated 16.12.2020
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Lakhnadon District- Seoni (M.P.).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant had moved an application to the Superintendent of
Police and SHO Police Station Aadegaon, Tehsil Lakhnadon
as is contained in Annexure-A/8 reporting that after being
released on bail, non-applicants are threatening coercing her
to take back her cases but no steps have been taken by the
Superintendent of Police or the SHO, therefore, this
application before the High Court for cancellation of bail.
3. Learned counsel for respondent Shri Vishal Daniel in
his turn submits that words used in Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
are High Court or Sessions Court and applicant should have
in the first instance approached the Sessions Court instead of
directly approaching the High Court.
4. It is also submitted that Annexure A/8, does not contain
signatures of the applicant and it appears to have been
prepared as an after thought in as much as, though date of
complaint is mentioned as 04.01.2021 but the postal receipt
reveals that it was dispatched from the High Court post office
on 12.01.2021 which demonstrates that there was no sense of
urgency and a document has been prepared just to seek
cancellation of bail.
5. Shri Vishal Daniel further submits that applicant has
thereafter participated in mediation proceedings and never
complained of any threat before the mediator, therefore, the
application for cancellation of bail be dismissed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record, it is evident that in case of Subhendu
Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and Another AIR 1999
SC 3026, Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on its
earlier judgments of Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (1995)
1 SCC 349 while drawing a distinction between rejection of
bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the
cancellation of bail already granted, it is opined by the Court
as under:-
"Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already
granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for
cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and
not exhaustive) are interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration
of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the
concession granted to the accused in any
manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the
basis of material placed on the record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation of
bail. However, bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to
retain his freedom by enjoying the concession
of bail during the trial. These principles, it
appears, were lost sight of by the High Court
when it decided to cancel the bail, already
granted. The High Court it appears to us
overlooked the distinction of the factors
relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable
case in the first instance and the cancellation
of bail already granted."
7. Similarly, in case of Puran Vs. Rambilas AIR 2001 SC
2023, it is held that the concept of setting aside the
unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from
the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused
has misconducted himself or because of some new facts
requiring such cancellation. It is further held that generally
speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are
interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the
due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner. In para-10 Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under :
" 10. ..........................................
"If, however, a Court of Session had
admitted an accused person to bail, the
State has two options. It may move the
Sessions Judge if certain new
circumstances have arisen which were
not earlier known to the State and
necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The
State may as well approach the High
Court being the superior Court under
Section 439(2) to commit the accused to
custody. When, however, the State is
aggrieved by the order of the Sessions
Judge granting bail and there are no new
circumstances that have cropped up
except those already existed, it is futile
for the State to move the Sessions Judge
again and it is competent in law to move
the High Court for cancellation of the
bail. This position follows from the
subordinate position of the Court of
Session vis-a-vis the High Court."
Thus, it is evident that applicant should have first
moved the Court concerned for cancellation of bail bringing
out the circumstances as have been mentioned in Annexure
A-8 and should not have approach this Court directly.
8. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mubeen and others
(2011) Criminal Law Journal 3850, a Division Bench of
Rajasthan High Court has held that mere filing of FIR against
accused persons does not mean that accused committed any
offence while on bail and committed breach of conditions of
bail. It is only when the Court forms opinion to that effect at
time of framing of charge then only aspect of cancellation of
bail can be considered as to whether there were grounds of
breach of conditions requiring consequent cancellation of
bail.
9. Thus, when examined the legal position in the above
factual backdrop, it is evident that there are no such
circumstances calling for cancellation of bail already granted
in favour of the respondents merely on the asking of the
applicant specially when applicant's own conduct as has been
pointed out by Shri Vishal Daniel in dispatching an
application dated 04.01.2021 on 12.01.2021 becomes suspect.
10. Thus, in my opinion, this M.Cr.C. when tested on the
aforesaid legal propositions, is devoid of merits, hence,
deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Digitally signed
by
ts. TULSA SINGH
Date:
2021.11.23
18:34:50 +05'30'
