Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Suryavanshi vs Jitendra on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30055
1 MCRC-32181-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32181 of 2025
RADHESHYAM SURYAVANSHI
Versus
JITENDRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramkrishna Shastri advocate for the applicant.
Shri Apoorv Joshi public prosecutor for the State.
Shri Chandan Kumar Gera advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
1. This application under section 483(3) of The Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the
respondent No.1 vide order dated 02/07/2025 passed in MCRC no. 23959/2025
in connection with Crime no. 273/2025 registered at Police Station - Tarana
District Ujjain.
2. Considered.
3. Respondent Jitendra was extended the benefit of bail for offence
punishable under sections 191(2), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 105 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Crime no. 273/2025 at Police Station Tarana
District - Ujjain subject to the condition that he shall abide by the conditions
enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C
4. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the FIR at Crime no.
150/2025 registered at Police Station Jharda District Ujjain, contends that the
respondent Jitendra has again committed offence punishable under sections 296,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30055
2 MCRC-32181-2025
115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and has violated the
condition for grant of bail, therefore, earlier bail granted to the respondent be
cancelled.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no
allegation that the subsequent offence has caused any interference in the trial.
Learned counsel further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Bhuri Bai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC)
1779 contends that mere registration of subsequent FIR or filing of final report is
not sufficient to cancel the bail already granted, unless cogent grounds are made
out and there is apparent possibility of interference with the trial. The final report
has been submitted on completion of investigation in Crime No. 150/2025
registered at Police Station - Jharda District Ujjain for offence punishable under
Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the
respondent has been extended the benefit of bail in subsequent offence. The
petition is meritless.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
7. The Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported
in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , laid down the factors relevant for cancellation of bail
already granted, as under-
"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so
granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30055
3 MCRC-32181-2025
8. These principles have been reiterated in case of CBI v. Subramani
Gopalakrishnan, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 296, as under-
"23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of
bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner.
These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the
materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhuri Bai (supra) 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) of Cr.P.C.
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 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) of Cr.P.C 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."
10. The factual scenario of the case in hand is examined in the light of
aforestated prepositions of law.
11. As informed, the respondent is extended the benefit of law in
subsequent offence registered at Crime no. 150/2025. The direct complicity of
respondent is prima facie not made out in subsequent prosecution. The subsequent
offence has no direct bearing on the incident alleged in previous prosecution.
There is no allegation that the respondent has caused any interference in the earlier
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30055
4 MCRC-32181-2025
trial relating to Crime no. 273/2025 or the trial is delayed or anyway affected due
to conduct of the respondent. The veracity of prosecution in the subsequent
offence will be determined after evidence in the trial. No supervening
circumstance has been made out to warrant the cancellation of the bail. There is no
cogent material to indicate that the accused has been guilty of conduct which
would warrant his being deprived of his liberty.
12. In view of the above discussions, no case is made out to cancel the
bail granted to the respondent vide impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed in
MCRC no. 23959 of 2025.
13. Consequently, present petition is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
