[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosecutrix Of Crime No. 70 /2025 vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
1 MCRC-5126-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5126 of 2026
PROSECUTRIX OF CRIME NO. 70 /2025
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yashvardhan Goswami - Advocate and Shri Vineet Saxena -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail
granted to Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in M.Cr.C. No. 41204 of 2025 and for setting aside the order
dated 27.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mehgaon, District Bhind in S.T. No. 33/2025, whereby the application
preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for
cancellation of bail has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a careful perusal of
the order dated 12.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41204/2025 reveals that
the operative portion of the said order directs the release on bail of one
"Amrish Sharma." The name of the present Respondent No. 2 does not find
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
2 MCRC-5126-2026
mention in the operative part of the order. The omission is not a minor
irregularity but goes to the very root of the matter. Even assuming it to be a
typographical or clerical error, Respondent No. 2 never took any steps for
rectification or clarification of the said order. In the absence of any
correction, the release of Respondent No. 2 on the basis of an order which
does not mention his name in the operative portion is ex facie illegal and
non-est in the eyes of law. Thus, the very foundation of his liberty is vitiated.
3. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2, after securing release
on the strength of such a flawed order, grossly misused the liberty granted to
him. On 04.10.2025, when the petitioner was present at Lahar, Respondent
No. 2 along with certain unknown persons intercepted her, abused her in
filthy language, and physically assaulted her, causing injuries. They openly
threatened her with dire consequences and pressurized her to withdraw the
criminal case. When the petitioner approached the concerned police station to
lodge a report regarding the said incident, the police authorities refused to
register her complaint and acted in collusion with Respondent No. 2. Having
been denied immediate relief, the petitioner submitted written complaints to
the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, on 06.10.2025, 13.10.2025, and
14.10.2025, detailing the assault and the continuous threats extended to her
and her family members with the intent to coerce her into a compromise. The
intimidation did not cease thereafter. On 24.11.2025, the wife, mother, and
brother of Respondent No. 2 allegedly assaulted the petitioner and reiterated
threats to compel her to compromise the matter. These incidents clearly
demonstrate a deliberate and concerted effort by Respondent No. 2 and his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
3 MCRC-5126-2026
family members to overawe the petitioner and interfere with the due course
of justice. Such conduct amounts to a blatant misuse of the liberty granted by
this Hon'ble Court and constitutes a clear violation of the conditions imposed
in the bail order, particularly conditions No. 3 and 4. In view of these
supervening circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application under
Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court seeking
cancellation of bail. In the said application, the petitioner specifically raised
the fundamental defect in the order dated 12.09.2025 as well as the
subsequent acts of assault, criminal intimidation, and interference with the
course of justice. The petitioner also placed on record copies of the
complaints submitted before the Superintendent of Police to substantiate the
post-bail misconduct of Respondent No. 2. However, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Mehgaon, vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2025,
dismissed the application on untenable and superficial grounds. The learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations and the
documentary material placed on record. It erroneously concluded that no
violation of bail conditions was established, completely ignoring the series of
complaints made to superior police authorities and the pattern of intimidation
and coercion. The learned Court also failed to consider that the continued
liberty of Respondent No. 2, in light of the patent defect in the original bail
order and his subsequent misconduct, seriously undermines the
administration of justice.
4. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application
of mind and overlooks material facts and evidence on record. The conduct of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
4 MCRC-5126-2026
Respondent No. 2, both in securing liberty on the basis of a defective order
and in misusing the same by threatening and assaulting the petitioner,
warrants cancellation of bail in the interest of justice. In these circumstances,
it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated
27.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehgaon,
District Bhind in Session Trial No. 33/2025 and cancel the bail granted to
Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41204
of 2025, and pass such other order as may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The principal contention of the petitioner is twofold. Firstly, it is
urged that in the operative portion of the order dated 12.09.2025, the name
mentioned is "Amrish Sharma" and not that of Respondent No. 2, and
therefore the release of Respondent No. 2 is non-est in the eyes of law.
Secondly, it is contended that after being released on bail, Respondent No. 2
misused the liberty granted to him by threatening and assaulting the
petitioner and by pressurizing her to enter into a compromise, thereby
violating Conditions No. 3 and 4 of the bail order.
6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 27.12.2025, it is evident
that the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 439(2)
of the Cr.P.C. holding that upon perusal of the case record, the accused was
ordered to be released on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 41204/2025 vide
order dated 12.09.2025 subject to certain conditions. The learned Trial Court
reproduced Conditions No. 3 and 4 of the bail order and examined whether
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
5 MCRC-5126-2026
there was any material on record to show violation thereof.
7. Insofar as Condition No. 3 is concerned, the learned Trial Court
observed that the application allegedly submitted by the prosecutrix at Police
Station Lahar on 04.10.2025 did not contain any specific allegation that the
accused had threatened her to enter into a compromise. Though in the
application submitted to the Superintendent of Police on 06.10.2025 it was
mentioned that pressure was exerted for compromise, in a subsequent
application dated 28.11.2025 there was no reference to the earlier incident
dated 04.10.2025 and a different incident dated 24.11.2025 was alleged. The
learned Trial Court further recorded that except for the said applications
submitted to the police authorities, no independent or cogent material had
been placed on record to substantiate the allegation that the accused had
extended threats or inducement in violation of the bail conditions. It was
therefore concluded that merely on the basis of such complaints, without any
supporting material or registration of a criminal case, violation of Condition
No. 3 was not established.
8. With regard to Condition No. 4, the learned Trial Court found that
no offence had been registered by the police on the basis of the complaints
submitted by the prosecutrix and no document had been produced to show
that any subsequent criminal case had been registered against the accused
after grant of bail. In absence of such material, the learned Court held that
violation of Condition No. 4 was also not made out.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that
cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. stands on a different
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
6 MCRC-5126-2026
footing from rejection of bail at the initial stage. Once bail has been granted,
it can be cancelled only upon showing supervening circumstances, misuse of
liberty, or interference with the course of justice. The power of cancellation
is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
10. In the present case, the material placed before the learned Trial
Court primarily consists of copies of complaints submitted to the police
authorities. Admittedly, no FIR was registered pursuant to the said
complaints, nor any independent material such as medical documents or
other corroborative evidence has been brought on record to prima facie
establish commission of a subsequent offence or intimidation in breach of
the bail conditions. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the
learned Trial Court that violation of Conditions No. 3 and 4 was not
substantiated cannot be said to suffer from perversity or non-application of
mind.
11. As regards the contention that the name "Amrish Sharma" appears
in the operative portion of the order dated 12.09.2025, this Court is of the
view that the same is clearly a typographical error. A reading of the order as
a whole, including the cause title, narration of facts, crime number, and
discussion therein, unmistakably indicates that the bail application pertained
to Respondent No. 2 in the concerned crime. An inadvertent clerical error in
mentioning the name in the operative portion, when the identity of the
accused and the crime number are otherwise clearly reflected in the order,
would not render the entire order void or non-est. Such errors are curable and
do not vitiate the substantive adjudication, particularly when the order was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5478
7 MCRC-5126-2026
acted upon in the same case and no ambiguity existed before the jail or the
trial Court regarding the identity of the accused.
12. This Court does not find that the impugned order dated 27.12.2025
suffers from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity
warranting interference in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
13. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
