Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10220
1 MCRC-6400-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6400 of 2025
BHUPENDRA SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Tyagi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Saket Udeniya - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for respondent No.2 through
VC.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the complainant- Bhupendra Singh Gurjar for cancellation of
bail granted to respondent No.2- Vinay Pal vide order dated 23.06.2023 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.24624/2023.
2.It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to
release of respondent No.2, the family members of respondent No.2 were
harassing the petitioner and putting immense pressure on him to compromise the
matter. After grant of bail, accused/respondent No.2 and his family members are
consistently threatening the petitioner and putting pressure on the petitioner to
change his version before the trial court and compromise the matter. It is further
submitted that after releasing on bail respondent No.2 is regularly pressurizing the
family members of the petitioner to compromise the case, and therefore, on
19.12.2024 another FIR has been lodged against him in Police Station Morar, at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10220
2 MCRC-6400-2025
Crime No. 682/2024 District Gwalior. The respondent No.2 has willfully and
deliberately violated the conditions of bail granted by this Court and he is
misusing the order of this Court after his release. The respondent No.2/accused is
consistently threatening the petitioner and other witnesses of the case and trying to
tamper the evidence so that by any means he may be acquitted. The mother of
respondent No.2 has sold her house legally and with valid consideration in favour
of wife of petitioner Suman Gurjar. There is no undue pressure created by the
petitioner for such sale-deed, rather respondent No.2 after releasing on bail is
regularly pressurizing the petitioner to compromise the matter and when he
refused to compromise the matter he has got lodged a false FIR against him at
crime No.153/2025 at police Station, Morar, Distt. Gwalior. Therefore, it is
prayed that bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 may be cancelled.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the
petition and submitted that earlier FIR Crime No.321/2020 has been got registered
by petitioner/complainant on false and frivolous grounds against respondent No.2.
The complainant party is an influential family and used to harass and mete out
cruelty against the family of respondent No.2. The complainant family has
implicated respondent No.2 in a false murder case and also get the possession over
their house, therefore, they are compelled to live in Indore leaving Gwalior. In
that respect, complaint has been submitted before the senior officials. It is further
submitted that because of harassment of the complainant party, father of
respondent No.2 has died. The complainant party in order to create pressure has
lodged another FIR against him as Crime No.682/2024 that respondent No.2 on
his own house affixed a paper containing threat to the complainant party which is
entirely concocted and falsely created. The mother of respondent No.2- Smt.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10220
3 MCRC-6400-2025
Girish Pal has filed a writ petition No.2147/2025 before this Court wherein
Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed vide order dated 29.01.2025 to
S.P.Gwalior to personally look into the matter and after giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as well as to other persons against whom allegations have
been levelled, take appropriate measures if at all some truth is found in the
complaint so made. It is further submitted that the complainant party tried by
hook or crook to get the possession of house of respondent No.2 and they by
creating pressure purchased the said house for consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-
from mother of respondent No.2.
4.It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that FIR
lodged by complainant as crime No.682/2024 for the offence under Sections 232
and 351(3) of BNS is delayed by four days and the reason assigned for such delay
is that "on arrival of the complainant at police Station". It is further submitted that
Section 232 of BNS is related to offence of threatening any person to give false
evidence and the procedure for registering this offence is given in Section 216 of
BNSS and as per Section 216 of BNS a witness or any other person may file a
complaint in relation to an offence under Section 232 of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that as per the definition of word "complaint"
given in Section 2h of BNSS it does not include a "police report". Here in this
case, police has registered an offence at crime No.682/2024, therefore, the
investigation as well as cognizance of the offence under Section 232 is
challengeable as FIR contained the version that respondent No.2-Vinaypal has on
mobile phone given threat to one witness Saurabh not to give evidence in the case,
but no FIR has been lodged by this witness and FIR has been lodged by one Vinod
Gurjar. Hence, for filing this false and baseless petition against respondent No.2 a
cost of Rs.5,00,000/- be imposed on the petitioner, for which I.A.No.8166/2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10220
4 MCRC-6400-2025
has been filed.
5.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents
available on record.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram Vs. State of
Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] has held as infra:
"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 to evade
the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted
to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,
on the basis of material placed on the record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once
granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow
the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession
of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were
lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the
bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us
overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for
rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and
the cancellation of bail already granted"
7. In the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 956, the Apex Court has held as under:
"19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to
cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong
case based on any supervening event is made out, an order
granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under
Section 439 (2) CrPC."
20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the
appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself
in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her.
We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of
bail should be exercised with extreme care and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10220
5 MCRC-6400-2025
circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered
merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the
accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of
cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of
disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a
case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under
Section 439 (2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where
the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the
requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the
matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of
the issue was not required only for one reason that a
particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its
order granting bail."
8. The Hon'ble Supureme Court in the case of Himanshu Sharma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 4 SCC 222 has held as under :
"11. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered
by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and
cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an
accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that
after being released on bail
(a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him;
(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;
(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory
provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail;
(d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or
fraud.
In the present case, none of these situations existed."
9. This petition for cancellation of bail has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant mainly on the ground that respondent No.2 while on bail
has misused the conditions of bail and committed subsequent offence under
Section 232 and 351(3) of BNS. However, it is not disputed that case is still at
investigation stage and no charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. It is also trite
law that cause for seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of commission of
subsequent offence gets matured only when the subsequent offence ripen into
framing of charge and not earlier. Decision of Division Bench of Rajasthan High
Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mubin reported in 2011 Cr.LJ 3850 may
be seen in this regard. It is also relevant to mention here that
petitioner/complainant has though alleged that respondent No.2 is threatening the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10220
6 MCRC-6400-2025
complainant party from the date of his release i.e. 23.06.2023, but no FIR has
been lodged by petitioner/complainant against respondent No.2 in this regard.
10.For the foregoing discussion and keeping in view the law laid down in
aforesaid judgments, the provisions of Section 232 of BNS, 216 of BNSS,
definition of "complaint" under Section 2(h) of BNSS, attending facts and
circumstances of the case and the material on record, the present petition seeking
cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 deserves to be dismissed.
11.So far as the application filed by respondent No.2 for awarding cost is
concerned, it is not prima facie found that application under Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C. has been filed with malafide intention to harass respondent No.2,
therefore, the submission as regards imposition of cost of Rs.5,00,000/- on
petitioner is not found on the cogent grounds.
12. Ergo, I.A.No.8166/2025 as well as petition under Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C. are found to be devoid of merits and hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ms/-
