Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1473 MP

                                                         1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                     MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25433 of 2021

                               Between:-
                               SHRI ARUN KUMAR TIWARI S/O UGRABHAN
                               PRASAD TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                               VILLAGE PANGADI KHURD TEH. SIRMOUR
                               POST OFFICE BAASH P.S. GUDHH (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI SHRIKANT MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

                      1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S.
                               GADHH DISTT. REWA M.P (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                      2.       CHANDRAKAR      UPADHYAY S/O ASHOK
                               UPADHYAY OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION
                               VILL. PANGADI KHURD, TEH. SIRMOUR, POST
                               OFFICE BAASH, P.S. GADHH, DISTT. REWA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI ANSHUL MISHRA, PANEL LAWYER)
                                           (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                             This application has come up for hearing on admission on this day
                      and the court passed following :
                                                         ORDER

This is first application for cancellation of bail granted to Chakradhar Upadhyay by a coordinate Bench on 30/04/2021 in M.Cr.C. No. 18726/2021 on the ground of subsequent development for which a report was made to the Inspector General of Police, Rewa on 08/08/2021 by one Ugrabhan Prasad S/o Saryu Prasad, however, no action has been taken.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant had moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa and SHO, Police Chouki, Lalgaon, Distt. Rewa as is contained in Annexure-O/2 reporting that after being released on bail, non-applicant is threatening/ coercing him to take back his case, but no steps have been taken by the Superintendent of Police or the Signature SAN Verified Not SHO, therefore, this application before this Court for cancellation of bail. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.02.07 19:29:42 IST

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.

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.

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 vy