Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shoail vs Abbas Ali on 22 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1 MCRC-36368-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36363 of 2023
SHOAIL
Versus
SADIK ALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nasreen Rehman, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35273 of 2023
SOHAIL
Versus
ASHFAQ ALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nasreen Rehman, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35290 of 2023
SOHAIL
Versus
NOSHAD ALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nasreen Rehman, learned counsel for the applicant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 4/24/2025
7:02:46 PM
2 MCRC-36368-2023
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36368 of 2023
SHOAIL
Versus
ABBAS ALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nasreen Rehman, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This order shall govern the final disposal of these miscellaneous
criminal cases as they have been arisen out of same crime number of same
police station, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by
this common order.
2. The present applications are filed by the applicant under Section
439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1
Sadik Ali (M.Cr.C. No. 36363/2023), No.1 Ashfaq Ali (M.Cr.C. No.
35273/2023), No. 1 Noshad Ali (M.Cr.C. No. 35290/2023) and No. 1 Abbas
Ali (M.Cr.C. No. 36368/2023) vide order dated 12.02.2022, 01.02.2021,
09.02.2021 & 28.04.2021 passed in MCRC Nos.7999/2021, 907/2021,
7309/2021 and 12343/2021 respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the petition of
respondent No. 1 of all four petitions, was allowed vide order dated
12.02.2022, 01.02.2021, 09.02.2021 & 28.04.2021, but they are trying to
3 MCRC-36368-2023
threat the complainant. In this case, applicant and respondent No. 1, are of
the same community and also neighbours, therefore, they made compromise
in the pressure of community. One another case has also been registered
against the respondent No. 1 of these petitions bearing Crime No. 496/2023
dated 29.07.2023 at police station Betma, District Indore Dehat. Hence, the
bail order is liable to be cancelled.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has
submitted that vide order dated 14.10.2024, complainant was given time for
recording the statement before the trial Court, but he was not present before
the trial Court on the last date of hearing and since there is no supervening
circumstances arises in the present case, the bail order passed by this Court
cannot be cancelled.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I have gone through the order.
6. It is well established that the power of cancellation of bail should be
used in rarest of rare cases. There should be some specific grounds to cancel
the bail application earlier passed by this Court. Counsel for the applicant is
unable to point out any supervening circumstances against the respondent
by which the bail can be cancelled.
6. In criminal jurisprudence, it is time honoured principle that when
two views are possible, in which one is in favour of the accused and the
second one is against the accused, then the view which is in favour of the
accused will be taken into consideration. In the land mark judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State through Delhi Administration
vs. Sanjay Gandhi, [AIR 1978 SC 961] it has been held as under:
4 MCRC-36368-2023
" Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing;
cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is
easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case
than to cancel a bail granted in such a case"
7. In view of above, in my considered opinion, the orders passed on
12.02.2022, 01.02.2021, 09.02.2021 & 28.04.2021 in MCRC
Nos.7999/2021, 907/2021, 7309/2021 and 12343/2021 do not warrant any
interference, hence, the petition stands dismissed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
