Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nilesh Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12234
1 MCRC-19865-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19865 of 2025
NILESH GARG
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Divyansh Goyal- advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Panwar appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of
BNSS r/w Section 529 of BNSS being aggrieved by the order dated
14.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Neemuch whereby
the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. Being aggrieved the said order,
the petitioner has filed an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C and the
learned Additional Sessions Court has dismissed the said application vide
order dated 24.04.2025, hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 passed in MCRC
No.36330/2024 and in pursuant to that said order, the petitioner was marking
his presence before the trial Court continuously. The petitioner used to attend
all the hearings, but on 02.04.2025, neither he could appear nor his advocate
before the learned trial Court due to prevailing strike by the Bar Association
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12234
2 MCRC-19865-2025
and could not receive any information regarding next date of hearing also. In
support of this submission regarding strike of Bar Association, and affidavit
and paper cuttings have also placed before this Court. Thereafter, on
12.04.2025, the learned trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant against
the petitioner. The petitioner, immediately filed an application under Section
70(2) of Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of the warrant by explaining his bona
fide, but the learned trial Court has rejected his application vide order dated
24.04.2025. Hence, the present petition for setting aside the impugned order
dated 24.04.2025 and recalling of the non-bailable warrant dated 12.04.2025.
3. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance over the judgment of this Court dated 21.03.2017 passed in the case
of Sachin Gupta, vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No.4417/2017.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, but
fairly admitted the factum of ongoing strike of Bar Association on the
respective date.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sachin Gupta
(supra) has held as under:-
"In cases like the present one where an accused person,
who is on bail and has failed to appear before the trail
Court on the date of hearing, the trial Court is well
within its right to issue a non-bailable warrant and he
same cannot be faulted. However, It is advisable that the
said power be not exercised in a routine or mechanical
manner. In such a situation, it will be in the larger
interest of justice to examine if the presence of the
accused could be secured for the next date by way of
bailable warrant instead, at the first instance. The option
to resort to either is within the discretion of the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12234
3 MCRC-19865-2025
Court which it must exercise in the facts and
circumstances of each case. If an application for
cancellation of the non-bailable warrant is filed before
the Court issuing it, it cannot be dismissed only on the
ground that the physical presence of the accused is
essential as the same is not necessary under Section
70(2) of Cr.P.C. as already stated hereinabove.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Court has allowed the
petition by setting aside the impugned order. Further, The Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has further endorsed the said Judgement of Sachin Gupta
(Supra) in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd A Private
Limited Company Registered Under the Provisions vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh decided on 11.08.2017 passed in MCRC No.1305/2017.
8. On this aspect, the attention of this Court has also been drawn
towards the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of
Krishna Sharma Alias Krishna Kumar Sharma vs. The State of West Bengal
And Anr. in SLP (Cri.) No.12829/2023 decided on 24.01.2024 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court in para nos.3 to 5 has held as under:-
3. Learned counsel appearing fro the appellant
submits that the appellant could not attend the Court on
the said date and there was traffic jam due to VIP
movements. He further submits that the lawyer of the
appellant also could not remain present as his
Vakalatnama was withdrawn on an earlier day.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State and
the learned counsel for the complainant oppose the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12234
4 MCRC-19865-2025
petition.
5. However, we find that merely because the
appellant did not appear personally could not have been
a ground for cancellation of bail. The Parameters for
grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally
different. The bail already granted may be cancelled, if
it is found that the person who has been granted the
benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or
misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or
tempering with evidence.
9. Although, the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is with
regard to an appeal, but guidance can be taken from the same and therefore,
the bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that the person who
has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or
misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tempering with evidence.
10. In the case at hand, the facts and circumstances are similar.
Therefore, in view of the settled provisions of law as well as considering the
findings of this Court in the case of Krishna Sharma Alias Krishna Kumar
Sharma (supra) and Sachin Gupta (Supra) as well as the factum of the
ongoing strike in concerned Bar Association, the impugned orders dated
12.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 stand set aside. The Petition is allowed
consequently. The bail bond of the petitioner stands restored and the
petitioner is directed to mark his presence on the next date of hearing before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12234
5 MCRC-19865-2025
the trial Court as well as on all subsequent dates.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court by the
registry for information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
