Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1 MCRC-42416-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 42416 of 2021
(ANKIT SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 06-01-2022
Shri Shobhendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwaha Dy. Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kuswah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. for
cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 who was granted the benefit of
regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.
24207/2019 vide order dated 21.06.2019 subject to furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.1,00,000/- with the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of
Cr.P.C.
It is submitted that after releasing of respondent No.2, he has
committed another offence bearing Crime No. 248/2020 registered at Police
Station Mehgaon, District Bhind punishable under Sections 342, 506, 294,
327, 323 read with 34 of IPC on 10.07.2020. He has also committed an
offence which was registered at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind on
13.07.2021 bearing Crime No.296/2021 punishable under Sections 323, 294,
506 and 34 of IPC, therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the bail of
respondent No.2 as he has misused the conditions of bail which was granted
to him in M.Cr.C. No. 24207/2019 on 21.06.2019.
Counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for
cancellation of bail. Reply has been filed in which it is stated that neither he
has threatened to any witness of Crime No.187/2018 in which he was enlarged
on bail nor on his behalf trial is pending.
As far as Crime No. 248/2020 is concerned, he has filed certified copy
of judgment in which, he has already been honorary acquitted by the learned
trial Court. As far as Crime No. 296/2021 is concerned he has falsely been
implicated by the family members of the respondent No.2 and all the offences
2 MCRC-42416-2021
which have been registered against the him are bailable in nature. Hence it is
prayed that this application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail be
rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is seen from the record that respondent No.2 was enlarged on bail by
the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.24207/2019 on 21.06.2019
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two solvent sureties of
the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court and shall abide by all the
terms and conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
Provision of 437(3) of Cr.P.C. is as follows:-
"(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of
an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter
XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of,
or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is
released on bail under sub- section (1), the Court may impose
any condition which the Court considers necessary-
(a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance
with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
(b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of
the commission of which he is suspected, or
(c) otherwise in the interests of justice."
Looking to Sub-Section (b) of Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C it is emerged
out that if a person released on bail commits an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, the
Court can cancel the bail.
After releasing on bail, offence registered against the respondent No.2
at Crime No. 248/2020, punishable under Sections 342, 506, 294, 327, 323
and 34 of IPC and at Crime No.296/2021 punishable under Sections 323,
294, 506 and 34 of IPC, in which Crime No.248/2020, he has already been
acquitted by the learned trial Court, but he was released on bail for offences
punishable under Section 364, 365, 302, 201, 120-B of IPC. Thus, it is clear
that after releasing on bail, offence similar to the offence of which he was
3 MCRC-42416-2021
released, crime has not been registered against him. Beside this Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Charu Soneja Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
passed in CRL. M.C. 2050/2021 decided on 03.01.2022 wherein, Hon'ble
Apex Court has enumerated certain conditions in which bail already granted
can be cancelled.
The Supreme Court in the case of Charu Soneja (Supra) has held as
under:-
"There is a significant difference between an order rejecting an
application for bail and an order for cancellation of bail. An order
rejecting a plea for bail in non-bailable offences is in the
discretionary domain of the Court and such a case can be decided
without delving into details, it can be rejected simpliciter on the
gravity of the offence and the perception that liberty, if granted, will
be abused by the accused. Whereas in the case of cancellation, the
Court is called upon to extinguish the liberty that has been formerly
granted. A Court must tread with utmost circumspection, and only
after an in-depth examination of the situation and new emergent
facts and on finding supervening circumstances and overwhelming
evidence that the accused has been abusing the liberty granted to
him by the Court, should the Court then exercise its jurisdiction in
seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial. Another reason for the
Court to be more circumspect in setting aside an order granting bail
is that, it involves review of a well- considered, reasoned judicial
order granting bail. Personal liberty is one of the cherished
constitutional freedoms. Once granted to an accused pending
completion of the Trial, it must only be retracted in the face of
grave and exacerbating circumstances. The party challenging bail
already given needs to demonstrate, by showing evidence and
instances, that the person enlarged on bail has been threatening the
victim and may consequently cause personal harm to the victim or
her family, is tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution
witnesses to the extent that it would vitiate the Trial and lead to a
miscarriage of justice."
Looking to the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to
allow the present application for cancellation of bail, hence it is hereby
dismissed.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
LOKENDRA JAIN
2022.01.06
17:08:16 +05'30'
