Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahesh @ Bhura on 27 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30871
1 MCRC-32345-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32345 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MAHESH @ BHURA
Appearance:
Shri Tarun Pagare public prosecutor for the applicant/State.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma advocate for the respondent.
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 vide order dated 03/11/2023 passed in MCRC no. 48803/2023 in
connection with Crime no. 450/2022 registered at Police Station - Namli,
District Ratlam.
2. Considered.
3. Respondent Mahesh was extended the benefit of bail for offences
punishable under sections 307, 147, 148, 294, 427 of IPC registered at Crime
no. 450/2022 at Police Station Namli, District - Ratlam.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the FIR at Crime no.
301/2024 registered at Police Station Namli, District Ratlam contends that
the respondent Mahesh has again committed offence punishable under
sections 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30871
2 MCRC-32345-2024
violated the condition for grant of bail, therefore, earlier bail granted to the
respondent be cancelled.
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the
subsequent FIR at Crime no. 301/2024 registered at Police Station Namli,
District Ratlam, contends that there is no allegation against the respondent to
threaten the complainant Kailash Jaat, rather, it is stated that earlier, the
respondent had threatened him for compromise. There is no FIR of such
earlier incident. This FIR is lodged merely to secure the cancellation of
bail. 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. 301/2024 registered at Police Station - Namli
District Ratlam for offence punishable under Sections 351, 3(5) of The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30871
3 MCRC-32345-2024
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."
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30871
4 MCRC-32345-2024
10. The factual scenario of the case in hand is examined in the light
of aforestated prepositions of law.
11. The direct complicity of respondent is prima facie not made out
in subsequent prosecution. There is no allegation that the respondent has
caused any interference in the earlier trial relating to Crime no. 450/2022 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 3.11.2023
passed in MCRC No. 48803 of 2023.
13. Consequently, present petition is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
