Arjun Singh Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62809




                                                                  1                        CRA-9350-2025
                             IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                                 ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9350 of 2025
                                                ARJUN SINGH MEENA
                                                       Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                             Mr. Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for appellant.
                             Ms. Ekta Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
                             Mr. Amber Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                                                      ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act), District Sehore (M.P.), in SC ATR No.4/2024 whereby the bail granted to the present appellant by the trial Court itself in connection with FIR/Crime No.23/2023 registered at Police Station Rehti, District Sehore, for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506(2), 34 and 325 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, has been cancelled on the ground of breach of bail conditions.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present appellant that vide the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, the learned trial Court itself has cancelled the bail granted to the present appellant in Crime No.23/2023, registered at Police Station Rehti, District Sehore, for the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62809

2 CRA-9350-2025 offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506(2), 34 and 325 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, on the basis of subsequent offence registered against the present appellant vide Crime No.283/2025, but it is a counter case because a case vide Crime No.282/2025 is also registered against the complainant party of that case. It is also submitted that though there was condition in earlier bail order dated 05.01.2024 that similar offence would not be committed by the present appellant and that condition has been breached as a subsequent offence has been registered against the present appellant by the police, however there was a property dispute between the parties and, due to that, he has been falsely implicated in the subsequent case. The present appellant has been granted bail in subsequent case by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025

passed in CRA No.6183 of 2025. The subsequent offence got registered malafidely against the present appellant due to property dispute. The cancellation of bail by the trial Court in Crime No.23/2023 vide the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 is erroneous and the present appellant may be granted the benefit of bail. He has also raised objection with regard to maintainability of the bail application from a third party as respondent No.3, Dhanpal, was not the victim of the case registered vide Crime No.23/2023.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as objector has opposed the bail application/appeal on the ground that there is breach of condition of bail granted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.01.2024 and, therefore, the bail granted to the present appellant by that order has been cancelled by the learned trial Court appropriately. The

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62809

3 CRA-9350-2025 bail granted by this Court in subsequent offence is no ground to escape from the liability of violating the bail conditions. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order, though it is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3, Dhanpal, that respondent No.3 is not a party of the case in which bail has been cancelled by the learned trial Court.

4. Having heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is admitted fact that respondent No.3, Dhanpal, on the application of whom, the learned trial Court has cancelled the bail granted to the present appellant, is neither a victim nor any witness in Crime No.23/2023. The High Court of Delhi in a case reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4472 (Prashant Kumar Umrao v. State and Anr.) , in paragraph- 16 has observed as under:-

"16. In totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion as under :

(i) The Investigating Officer is to take decision seeking cancellation of bail and the grounds thereof on the basis of material collected during investigation.

(ii) Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. does not envisage any right upon any stranger to approach the Court for cancellation of bail, a right which has been conferred only on the Investigating Officer or under exceptional circumstances to the complainant.

(iii) Application of a stranger cannot be entertained by the Court without any substantial sent of facts and circumstances or without sound principle of law to call upon the accused for cancellation of bail who has been protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India except the authority empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure."

5. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case has concluded that there is no substance for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused and to issue notice to the respondent/accused for cancellation of bail.

6. The same principle has been followed by the Allahabad High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62809

4 CRA-9350-2025 in case of Nikhil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.355 of 2025) decided vide order dated 24.11.2025. The relevant paragraph is as under:

"16. The Applicant has no locus to seek cancellation of bail because he is a stranger to the present proceedings and does not fall within the statutory concept of "victim," which is confined to the person who has suffered loss or injury in that very case (or their guardian/legal heir) under the 2009 amendment to CrPC and its retention in BNSS 2023. The expanded victim rights regime was meant to empower victims in their own cases, not to allow a victim from one matter to intervene vindictively in an unrelated case, and therefore an application moved out of vengeance or personal vendetta should not be entertained as it would subvert justice rather than aid proper adjudication. The courts cannot be permitted to be used as a conduit to settle personal scores."

7. Resultantly, the Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid case has found that the application for cancellation of bail is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it has been rejected.

8. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Gulshan Babbar Vs. Lalit Goyal and another, CRM-M-48019-2024, vide order dated 17.09.2025, has also opined that the position of law on the issue is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sanjai Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 660 , while relying upon a case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others, (1993) 1 SCC 756, has held that "it is for the parties in the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of Public Interest Litigants. Only a person who is directly affected and who can establish a real grievance is entitled to seek cancellation of bail. A stranger with no direct prejudice cannot clothe himself with the status of an "aggrieved party" and invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62809

5 CRA-9350-2025 rejected the application for cancellation of bail".

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rashid Khan @ Arif Khan (M.Cr.C. No.29008 of 2024) decided vide order dated 29.08.2024, while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana , reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , has concluded that mere registration of offence against the respondent/accused to whom bail was granted by the Court, cannot be made the sole ground for cancellation of bail.

10. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, respondent No.3, Dhanpal, had no locus before the learned trial Court to raise a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the present appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is suffering from material illegality and perversity, thus it is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act), District Sehore (M.P.), in SC ATR No.4/2024, cancelling the bail already granted to the present appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant be released on the anvil of earlier bail order in his favour.

12. With the aforesaid observations, this criminal appeal stands disposed of.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE

ac/-