Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vikram Sansi on 23 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 272 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION MUNGWALI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER/STATE
(BY MR. RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND
VIKRAM SANSI S/O PUNIYA @ PUNNA SANSI, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TALAIYA THANA DNA
TEHSIL MUNGAWALI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
(BY MR. DEEPAK SHRIVASTAV - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for Admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed
for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 45480 of 2019.
Brief facts for disposal of the case are that an FIR bearing Crime
No.526/2019 was registered against the respondent for the offences punishable
under Section 34(2) of IPC. Respondent filed an application under section 439
of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in M.Cr.C. No. 45480/2019 and was granted the
benefit of bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
15.11.2019 on following conditions:-
"1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
3 . The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police
Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The applicant shall appear and mark his attendance before the trial
court concerned/committal court once every month till conclusion of the
trial,failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without
further reference to this Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner/State argued that after getting the
benefit of bail, respondent breached the condition no.4 of bail, wherein he was
directed not to commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.
However, after passing that order, the respondent again committed another
offence on account of which, another Crime No.73/2023 for the offence
punishable u/Ss. 294, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC has been registered against him.
Since the respondent has breached the condition no.4 of the bail, therefore, the
present application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. be allowed and bail granted
to respondent be recalled.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent denied the
allegations made in application and submitted that mere registration of FIR is
not a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. It is further submitted that he has
not violated any conditions as directed by this Court while granting bail. The
subsequent offence was registered is not same in nature which was admitted by
Counsel for the State. In such circumstances, present petition filed by State
deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention he has relied upon the
judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dolat Ram Vs.
State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] and Subhendu
Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and Anr., reported in (1999) AIR
(SCW) 2955 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "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 or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of
the concession granted to the accused in any manner."
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material
available on record.
Perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the subsequent offence was
registered by the prosecution bearing Crime No. 73 of 2023 for offence under
Sections 294, 506, 34 and 323 of IPC are not same in nature. Under such
circumstances, respondent has not violated any conditions of the bail wherein,
he was granted bail,
Consequently, present petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
