Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sukhdev on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27864
1 MCRC-24077-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24077 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SUKHDEV
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur GA for the State.
Shri Ramesh Chandra Gangare - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
1. This application under section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C has been filed
for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 22/08/2022
passed in MCRC no. 32706/2022 in connection with Crime no. 201/2022
registered at Police Station - Biora City, District - Rajgarh..
2. Considered.
3. Respondent Sukhdev was extended the benefit of bail for offence
punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and sections 353, 332,
427 of the IPC registered at Crime no. 201/2022 at Police Station - Biora
City, District - Rajgarh.. 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 State, referring to the FIR at Crime no.
735/2022 registered at Police Station - Biora City, District-Rajgarh, contends
that the respondent has again committed offence punishable under section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27864
2 MCRC-24077-2024
34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and has violated the condition for grant of bail
that he shall not commit similar offence, 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 and the order dated 29/08/2024 passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC no. 28999/2024 ( State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Anil Saket), contends that mere registration of 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. 735/2022 registered at Police Station - Biora City District
Rajgarh for offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27864
3 MCRC-24077-2024
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:27864
4 MCRC-24077-2024
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. 735/2022. There is no allegation
that the respondent has caused any interference in the earlier trial relating to
Crime no. 201/2022 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. The subsequent offence has no
connect with the incident alleged in previous prosecution. 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 22/08/2022
passed in MCRC no. 32706/2022.
13. Consequently, present petition is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
