Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vitthal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13199
1 MCRC-21707-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 17th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21707 of 2025
VITTHAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Divyansh Goyal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J. Yadav, counsel for the State.
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
30.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, 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 30.04.2025, hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits and undertakes before the
Court that the facts of the present petition are similar to the petition i.e.
MCRC No.19865/2025 [Nilesh Garg vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh] and
this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in that MCRC No.19865/2025
has elaborately discussed the law on the point involved and allowed the
petition wherein the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court due to
strike of Bar association. In the present case also, the petitioner could not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13199
2 MCRC-21707-2025
appear before the trial Court on 07.04.2025 due to the said strike of Bar
Association. The present case is squarely covered with the order dated
08.05.2025 passed in MCRC No.19865/2025.
3. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, but has not disputed
the order passed in the case of Nilesh Garg (supra) and also conceded that on
07.04.2025, due to the ongoing strike of Bar Association, Govt. Prosecutor
has also not appeared before the trial Court.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In this regard, the important excerpt contained in para no.6 to 10 of
the order passed in the case of Nilesh Garg (supra) is important to quote here
as under:-
"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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13199
3 MCRC-21707-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13199
4 MCRC-21707-2025
day.
4. Learned counsel for the
respondent/State and the learned counsel for
the complainant oppose the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13199
5 MCRC-21707-2025
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
the trial Court as well as on all subsequent dates."
6. In the case at hand, the facts and circumstances are similar.
Therefore, in view of the settled law by this Court in the case of Nilesh Garg
(Supra), the impugned orders dated 07.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 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 the trial Court as well as on all subsequent dates.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
8. 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
