[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
1 MCRC-39098-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39098 of 2025
AJAY PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
None for respondent No.2, though served.
ORDER
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483(3) of
the BNSS for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by trial Court
vide impugned order dated 23.08.2025 (Annexure C/1) in connection with
FIR/Crime No.374/2024 registered at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471,384, 386,
506, 506 r/w 120-B, 34 of I.P.C.
2. As per prosecution story, an F.I.R. was lodged by the
complainant/applicant wherein it has been stated that he is engaged in
construction and contractual work. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that in the
month of July 2023, one Jameel, the brother-in-law of Mehmood (who is the
brother of Abdul Razzak), approached the complainant and informed him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
2 MCRC-39098-2025
that a plot of land admeasuring 2,587 sq. ft. at Amkhera, belonging to
Razzak, was available for sale and could also be taken under a builder ship
plan whereafter, Jameel offered to arrange a meeting with the concerned
family. Thereafter, in the month of September 2023, Jameel took the
complainant to the residence of Mohammad Riyaz (brother of Abdul
Razzak). At this meeting, Riyaz, his son/ Respondent no. 2 i.e. Azhar, his
wife Shamima, and his daughter Nasreen Nikhat were present and
furthermore, one Brajesh Mishra had also accompanied the complainant. It
was decided that the complainant would meet Abdul Razzak personally,
which eventually took place on 17 July, 2023 during a court visit wherein the
Respondent no.2 i.e. Azhar introduced the complainant to Abdul Razzak,
who initially demanded Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the property. On request of the
complainant, the price was settled at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Thereafter, he made
several payments to the accused persons. Following these payments, an
agreement was executed between the complainant and Nasreen Nikhat.
Despite repeated assurances, the accused persons allegedly started avoiding
execution of the registered sale deed. On 24 May 2024, the complainant was
again taken by respondent no.2. i.e. Azhar to the court premises where
Razzak is said to have refused to complete the registry. In total, the applicant
has paid a huge sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- to the accused persons. Despite
receiving the substantial consideration, the accused have refused to execute
the sale deed. Instead, they have extended threats to the complainant. The
complainant/applicant has made payments amounting to nearly
Rs.95,00,000/, yet the accused persons have neither executed the sale deed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
3 MCRC-39098-2025
nor returned the money, and have instead resorted to threats and intimidation.
Therefore, the complaint has been lodged by the applicant. The respondent
No.2/accused as well as other co-accused persons had harass and torment the
applicant and given threat to compromise the case registered by him at P.S.
Omti, District-Jabalpur. The investigation in respect of respondent no.2 is
still going on and the charge-sheet has also not been filed but the said fact
has been overlooked by the learned Court below and has granted bail to the
respondent no.2. Hence, this application for cancellation of bail has been
filed by the applicant.
3. Heard Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant and
Mr. B.D. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent
No.1/State. Though, notice was served to the original accused/respondent
No.2 and earlier the Court has granted time by order dated 5.12.2025 and
23.01.2026 and from the report available on record, it transpires that the
notice is already delivered on 27.09.2025 to respondent No.2, but he has not
filed any appearance nor engaged any counsel. Therefore, matter is taken up
for further consideration on merit by considering that the respondent No.2 is
not willing to contest the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the FIR the
applicant has categorically alleged that he is engaged in construction and
contractual work and in the month of July 2023, one Jameel, the brother-in-
law of Mehmood (who is the brother of Abdul Razzak), approached the
complainant and informed him that a plot of land admeasuring 2,587 sq. ft. at
Amkhera, belonging to Razzak, was available for sale and could also be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
4 MCRC-39098-2025
taken under a buildership plan whereafter, Jameel offered to arrange a
meeting with the concerned family. He has further submitted that
subsequently in the month of September 2023, Jameel took the complainant
to the residence of Mohammad Riyaz (brother of Abdul Razzak). At this
meeting, Riyaz, his son/ Respondent no. 2 i.e. Azhar, his wife Shamima, and
his daughter Nasreen Nikhat were present and more person Brajesh Mishra
was also accompanied the complainant. It is also stated in the FIR that that
the complainant would meet Abdul Razzak personally, which eventually
took place on 17th July, 2023 during the court visit, wherein the Respondent
no.2 i.e. Azhar introduced the complainant to Abdul Razzak, who initially
demanded Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the property. On the complainant's request,
the price was settled at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In FIR, the applicant has
categorically alleged that thereafter he made several payments to the accused
persons from time to time. Despite that though the agreement was executed
between the complainant and Nasreen Nikhat but thereafter though repeated
assurances were given by the applicant, the accused persons allegedly started
avoiding execution of the registered sale deed and therefore, in May 2024,
the complainant was again taken by respondent no.2. i.e. Azhar to the Court
premises where Razzak is said to have refused to complete the registry. He
has further submitted that the applicant has paid a huge sum of
Rs.95,00,000/- to the accused persons. Despite receiving this substantial
consideration, the accused have allegedly refused to execute the sale
deed. Instead, they have extended threats to the complainant. It is also the
case of the applicant that he was harassed by respondent No.2/accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
5 MCRC-39098-2025
co-accused persons and tried to torment the applicant and time and again,
threat has been posed by respondent No.2 as well as by other co-accused to
compromise the case registered by him at Police Station Omti, District
Jabalpur. He has further submitted that the respondent No.2 is a habitual
offender and as many as 3 cases of identical nature have been registered
against him. He has further submitted that the respondent No.2 is member of
a goonda gang wherein majority of the co-accused including the principal
accused is a history-sheeter and that, he along with his associates have
committed series of heinous offences as a result of which there is always a
situation of law and order and, therefore, he has submitted that the trial Court
has granted bail to the respondent No.2/accused by observing that the
investigation is in progress and will take take some more time to conclude
and on the sole ground of the same that investigation will be delayed, the
trial Court has considered the case of such hard core criminal for bail by
ignoring certain material available with the prosecution whereby it is also
found that the main history-sheeter Abdul Razzak and other persons are
indulging in many activities though the main accused is behind the bar and
whenever he is produced before the Court, he is calling such persons who are
identically situated like present applicant and give all possible threats to
snatch away the properties or to extort the money. He has further submitted
that the accused has also preferred a writ petition for quashing of FIR which
was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench by order dated 03.03.2025 by
making serious observation which is even not considered by the trial Court
while considering the application for bail. He has further submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
6 MCRC-39098-2025
considering the fact that the respondent No.2/accused is part of larger gang
operating under the leadership of Abdul Razzaq, a history-sheeter and has
been indulging in systematic offences of forgery, cheating and extortion and
that, his continued liberty poses a constant threat to the complainant, other
witnesses, and to the society at large. Bail in such circumstances directly
undermines public interest and law and order. By referring to Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC, he has submitted that the respondent No.2 is
not first time offender, but a habitual criminal and is indulged in committing
similar offences. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment
in the case of Deepak Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and another reported in
(2022) 8 SCC 559 of which paragraphs No. 33 to 37 are relevant. He has
also relied on the judgment in the case of Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh
alias Inder and another, reported in ( 2021) SCC OnLine SC 633. He has also
relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 [Puran v.Rambilas ]
and (1995) 1 SCC 34 in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana . He has
therefore submitted that such conduct of the respondent No.2/accused is such
that the case is fall within the ambit of Section 483(3) of the BNSS, which
empowers this Court to cancel bail when liberty is misused. He has
submitted that the Trial Court while dealing with the application for bail,
among other circumstances has to consider as per the settle preposition of
law that:
a. Nature of accusation and severity of punishment in
case of conviction.
b. Previous criminal antecedents.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge.
He has submitted that this aspects are missed out by the learned trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
7 MCRC-39098-2025
Court while considering the application for bail that too prior to filing of any
charge sheet, the bail is granted to such hard core criminal and, therefore, he
has submitted that this is a fit case where the Court should exercise power in
favour of the present applicant. Therefore, he prays that this petition be
allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the State Mr. B.D. Singh, has supported the
submission made the Bar by the counsel for the applicant and has submitted
that he will file the written submission in support of his submission made at
the Bar. He has further submitted that in addition to the submission made by
the counsel for the applicant, it is relevant to point out certain aspect that the
respondent accused is a member of the gang of history-sheeter, Haji Abul
RAzzak @ Razzak Pahalwan, as his name finds mention at Serial No.7 of the
order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur
updating the gang history-sheeter. He has produced the same by Annexure
R/1 with his brief written submission along with original order dated
26.10.2002 by the then SP, Jabalpur declaring him as a gang history-sheeter.
He has submitted that the respondent/accused has several crimes registered
against him for that also he has pointed out to Annexure R/2, which is filed
with the written submission filed by the counsel for the State. He has further
submitted that as per the FIR, the respondent No.2/accused took the
applicant twice to meet the gang history-sheeter on 17.07.2023 and then
24.05.2025. He has further submitted that the alleged sale agreement dated
09.03.2024 said to be executed between the co-accused Nasreen Nikhat and
the applicant/victim was filed by the respondent with W.P. No.40157/2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
8 MCRC-39098-2025
which was a forged piece of document. In support of his submission, he has
submitted that on 04.09.2024, the Notary, Dhiraj Khullar, stated in writing to
victim that he has not notarized the said sale agreement. He has further
submitted that he made a complaint dated 23.01.2024 to the S.P., Jabalpur
regarding the same. He has further submitted that on 23.09.2024 and
28.01.2025, the Notary stated under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he has not
notarized the said document, it does not even bear his signature and seal
which has been forged and even there is no entry of the same in his Notary
Registry. He has submitted that the Police has also seized that Notarial
Register, whereby it is found that there was no entry of notarization of the
said document. He has further submitted that even Sr. Treasury Officer has
also informed that the stamp on which the alleged agreement dated
09.03.2024 is said to be executed was issued by the Treasury only on
22.03.2024, which clearly shows that its been deliberately back dated. He has
further submitted that as per the FIR, on 21.06.2024, the respondent/accused
called the applicant/victim at Maharashtra School near Golbazar, where
various co-accused were also present and by threatening him of his life with
a pistol they asked him to hand over the original agreement and bank
statements, which he did not had. So they threatened him to eliminate his
entire family. Therefore, he has submitted that the trial Court has committed
error by not taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant material and
facts of substantial nature and also by overlooking the influential position of
the accused as compared to the victim. He has further submitted that the trial
Court has completely ignored the past criminal record of the accused and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
9 MCRC-39098-2025
lastly he has submitted that the trial Court has taken into consideration while
considering the application for bail which is totally irrelevant aspect for
consideration of bail and, therefore, perversity has crept in the impugned
order. Hence, he has prayed that the application of the applicant is required
to be allowed.
6. I have considered the various aspects of the matter. Without
discussing much about the same, it is now well settled position of law that
the trial Court has to consider the relevant aspects; more particularly
considering the case of the hard core criminal, the Court has to consider the
nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment of in the event
of conviction, danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on
bail, character, behavior means position and standing of the accused also
required to be considered likelihood of the offence being repeated and the
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced and danger of
justice being thwarted by grant of bail. There is no whisper about the above
mentioned aspect by the counsel for the applicant as well as learned
Additional Advocate General regarding the various documents and various
events as well as various antecedents and connection of the present applicant
with the gang leader while considering bail application, the trial Court has
only considered that the investigation will take some more time to conclude
and, therefore, bail is considered. In my view that ground for consideration is
not proper, more particularly by ignoring the relevant material available on
record and, therefore, I am of the view that in view of the judgment in the
case of Puran v. Rambilas reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338 , where it has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
10 MCRC-39098-2025
laid down that cancellation of bail is justified where the order granting bail
suffers from ignoring material facts or is perverse in nature. The present case
fully satisfied both sets of condition. It is also relevant to refer to the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of
U.P., reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559. The relevant paragraphs 19 to 24 and 27
and 31 are reproduced here under:
"19. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is important to
understand the extent of the power of the High Court to grant bail
and the factors determining nature and gravity of the crime in
order to grant bail to accuse concerned. As rightly stated by
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer "the issue of bail is one of liberty,
justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of
which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a
socially sensitized judicial process.
ANALYSIS
A. Principles governing grant of bail
2 0 . Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is the guiding principle for
adjudicating a Regular Bail Application wherein Court takes into
consideration several aspects. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to
be exercised cautiously on the basis of well- settled principles
having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
21. In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) And Another ,
a two-Judge Bench of this Court stated the principles which are to
be considered while granting bail which are as follows : -
"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep
in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the character,
behaviour, means and standing of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
11 MCRC-39098-2025
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public or State and similar other considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of
granting the bail the Legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant
of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there
is a genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge. It is not excepted, at
this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
22. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of this Court
i n Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee And
Another, it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing
of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail.
23. The decision in Prasanta (Supra) has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
12 MCRC-39098-2025
consistently followed by this Court in Ash Mohammad
Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And
Another, Virupakshappa Gouda And Another Vs. State
of Karnataka And Another and State of Orissa Vs.
Mahimananda Mishra.
24. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case
o f Y v. State of Rajasthan authored by one of us
(Hon'ble N.V. Ramana, CJ), it has been observed as
under : (SCC paras 24-25)
"24. The impugned order passed by the High Court is
cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind.
There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting
or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a
general observation that "the facts and the
circumstances" have been considered. No specific
reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of
the order by the Court.
25. Such a situation continues despite various
judgments of this Court wherein this Court has
disapproved of such a practice. In the case of Mahipal
(Supra), this Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 128-
29, para 25)
'25. Merely recording "having perused the record"
and "on the facts and circumstances of the case" does
not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. It
is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our
judicial system is committed, that factors which have
weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the
grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open
justice is premised on the notion that justice should not
only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be
seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned
decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of
individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as
the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring
that those who commit crimes are not afforded the
opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
13 MCRC-39098-2025
to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a
conclusion." (emphasis in original)
27. The importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of
bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to
indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail
where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound
reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has
been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the
relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
28. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Bhavan
Rathod (Supra) held that the duty to record reasons is a significant
safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to
the court, is exercised in a judicious manner. The operative portion
of the judgment reads as under : - (SCC pp. 251-52, paras 38-39)
"38....We disapprove of the observations of the High
Court in a succession of orders in the present case
recording that the Counsel for the parties "do not press
for a further reasoned order". The grant of bail is a
matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the
interest of the State and the victims of crime in the
proper administration of criminal justice. It is a well-
settled principle that in determining as to whether bail
should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter,
the Sessions Court deciding an application
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C would not launch upon a
detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a
criminal trial is still to take place. These observations
while adjudicating upon bail would also not be binding
on the outcome of the trial. But the Court granting bail
cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to
record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of
deciding whether or not to grant bail. The consent of
parties cannot obviate the duty of the High Court to
indicate its reasons why it has either granted or refused
bail. This is for the reason that the outcome of the
application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the
accused on one hand as well as the public interest in the
due enforcement of criminal justice on the other. The
rights of the victims and their families are at stake as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
14 MCRC-39098-2025
well. These are not matters involving the private rights
of two individual parties, as in a civil proceeding. The
proper enforcement of criminal law is a matter of public
interest. We must, therefore, disapprove of the manner
in which a succession of orders in the present batch of
cases has recorded that counsel for the "respective
parties do not press for further reasoned order". If this is
a euphemism for not recording adequate reasons, this
kind of a formula cannot shield the order from judicial
scrutiny.
39. Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is a
matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion.
Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail - as in
the case of any other discretion which is vested in a
court as a judicial institution - is not unstructured. The
duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which
ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the
court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording
of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought
process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and
that it meets objective standards of reason and justice."
(emphasis supplied).
29. Similarly, this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay (Supra),
observed that :-
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order
but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order
for Bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the Court and facts however do always
vary from case to case. While placement of the accused
in the society, though may be considered but that by
itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of
bail and the same should and ought always be coupled
with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail.
The nature of the offence is one of the basic
consideration for the grant of bail more heinous is a
crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
15 MCRC-39098-2025
though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the
matter." (emphasis supplied).
30. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Mahipal Vs. Rajesh
Kumar Alias Polia And Another16 observed :- (SCC p. 125, para
14)
"14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail
touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this
reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with
an order of the High Court granting bail. However,
where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has
been exercised without the due application of mind or
in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an
order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is
required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie
view that the accused had committed the offence, the
nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of
the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in
any manner or evading the course of justice. The
provision for being released on bail draws an
appropriate balance between public interest in the
administration of justice and the protection of
individual liberty pending adjudication of the case.
However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the
bounds of the law and in compliance with the
conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason
that a court must balance numerous factors that guide
the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a
case by case basis. Inherent in this determination is
whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that
there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that
the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant
at this stage for the court to examine in detail the
evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding."
C. Cancellation of Bail
31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that 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 trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
16 MCRC-39098-2025
Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing
cancellation of bail (which was already granted).
7. It is also relevant to note that while dismissing the petition for
quashing of FIR in W.P. No. 40157/2024 by order dated 3rd March, 2025,
the co-ordinate Bench observed in paragraph 3 as under:
"3. In said order, role of petitioners has also been
detailed and it is found that petitioners were present
when registry dated28.03.2024 was done. Cheque of
sale consideration of Rs.20 Lac was also given to
Riyaz. Other allegations were made against petitioners
regarding threatening and accompanying accused
persons when registry was being done. It has also been
stated that petitioners were acting on behalf of main
accused in the case namely Abdul Razzak."
8. Section 483(3) of BNSS is relevant, the same is quoted as under:
"483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding
bail.--
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct,--
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be
released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in
sub-section (3) of section 480, may impose any condition which it
considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-
section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when
releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided
that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
17 MCRC-39098-2025
exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so
triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the
application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to
give such notice: Provided further that the High Court or the Court
of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of
an offence triable under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, give notice of the
application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such
application.
(2) The presence of the informant or any person authorized
by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application
for bail to the person under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section
70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(3) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any
person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be
arrested and commit him to custody."
9. Considering the above settled position of law and considering the
fact that the finding of the trial Court while considering the case of such hard
core criminal by ignoring certain relevant material which is very important
for the consideration of case of such hard core criminal for bail who himself
is a history-sheeter and is also member of goonda gang requires more
caution while considering such bail application. It is also relevant to note that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
18 MCRC-39098-2025
from the material available on record, it transpires that the respondent No.2 is
more powerful than the present applicant and will certainly cause some
damage to the applicant if he is released on bail looking to his previous
record and his conduct also.
10. More over, considering the above position of law, I am of the
opinion that the trial Court has not properly considered the various aspects of
the matter while considering the bail application and, therefore, it is clear that
the impugned order passed by the trial Court for granting bail can be
considered as a perverse and as finding is given by the trial Court that the
investigation will take some more time to complete which is not justifiable
ground for consideration of bail application in such serious offence, whereby
accused is a history-sheeter and may commit such offences repeatedly by
misusing his liberty. More over, the trial Court has also ignored some
relevant and important material for prima facie considering while deciding
the bail application for serious offence regarding such hard core criminal. On
both counts, the interference is required under Section 483 (3) of BNSS. The
application is allowed. The bail which is granted by the trial Court vide order
dated 23.08.2025 in B.A. 3007/2025 to respondent No.2 is cancelled. Bail
bonds/surety furnished by him are cancelled. Since the respondent No.2 is
not present though served on 27.09.2025, it is directed to the respondent
Investigating Authority to do the needful to take him into custody.
11. This M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed of.
12. However, it is clarified that if the respondent No.2 again approach
the concerned Court with proper prayer for bail, then it may be considered by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11012
19 MCRC-39098-2025
the trial Court after considering all relevant material and considering the case
for granting or refusing bail by keeping in mind the settled preposition of
law.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information and necessary compliance as well as copies may sent to D.G.P.
and Secretary, Home Department of State, to take corrective measures as
from allegations, it transpires that the person who is behind bar is having
meeting in the court premises with various persons though there is presence
of Police.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
