[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:988
1 MCRC-17625-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 13 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17625 of 2025
MAHESH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunit Kapoor, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Unnit Jhanjhari, Advocates for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
ORDER
The present petition is being filed under section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents
No.2 - Subash Sharma and No.3 - Dhan Singh, vide order dated 13.04.2023 and
27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023 and M.Cr.C. No.17674/2023
respectively, in connection with FIR/Crime No.256/2022 registered at Policer
Station - Khilchipur, District Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections
365, 34, 366, 344, 376, 376(2)(N), 376(D) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in
the application, contends that the respondents No.2 - Subash Sharma and No.3 -
Dhan Singh were extended benefit of bail vide order dated 13.04.2023 and
27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023 and M.Cr.C. No.17674/2023
respectively subject to condition that they shall abide by the conditions
enumerated under Section 437(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Learned
counsel referring to the evidence of complainant(PW1) submits that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:988
2 MCRC-17625-2025
complainant had reported to the Court that during her evidence on 06.11.2023,
accused Dhan Singh has threatened her. The trial Court warned Dhansingh not to
speak or threaten the complaint. It goes to show that the respondent/accused
Dhansingh attempted to influence and threaten the witness. Learned counsel
further referred to the FIR at Crime No.233/2023 registered at P.S. Khilchipur,
District - Rajgarh(Biaora)(M.P.) by Shrinath Sharma that the witnesses were
threatened by Dhan Singh and Subash Sharma. Learned counsel also referred to
FIR at Crime No.114/2025 registered at P.S. Khilchipur, District Rajgarh(Biaora)
(M.P.) lodged by petitioner - Mahesh regarding threatening and assault by Subash
Sharma to him and his wife over previous dispute. Therefore, the bail granted to
the respondents No.2 - Subash Sharma and No.3 - Dhan Singh vide order dated
13.04.2023 and 27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023 and M.Cr.C.
No.17674/2023 deserves to be set aside.
Per Contra , learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3/complainant
submits that the evidence of complainant was recorded on the same day when she
was allegedly abused by Dhansingh. There was no hindrance in the trial. Shrinath
Sharma or his family members are not witness to the present prosecution. There is
ongoing dispute between the parties as complainant had left her matrimonial home
and went to live with Dhansingh. All these FIRs are lodged in reference to that
dispute. 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 petition is meritless.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:988
3 MCRC-17625-2025
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the trial is
underway. The complainant party has lodged the FIR against Subash Sharma and
Dhansingh that shows violation of the condition of bail.
Heard both the parties and perused the record.
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."
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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:988
4 MCRC-17625-2025
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."
The factual scenario of the case in hand is examined in the light of
aforestated prepositions of law.
The evidence of prosecutrix(PW1) commenced on 18.04.2023 was
adjourned. Her cross-examination commenced on 06.11.2023. During cross-
examination, the prosecutrix alleged that during lunch hours, Dhansingh abused
her and asked, what statement she has given inside the Court. The trial Court
warned Dhansingh not to speak with the prosecutrix or threaten her. However, her
evidence continued on the day. Later, it was adjourned for 18.04.2024. The cross-
examination concluded on 18.04.2024. Meanwhile, no application for cancellation
of bail was filed either on behalf of the prosecutrix or by the prosecution. It goes
to show that the trial was not affected by the alleged conversation between
accused Dhansingh and the prosecutrix. The incident with regard to threatening
and assault by respondents Nos.2 and 3 with Shrinath Sharma, has no relevance to
the present trial as Shrinath Sharma or his relatives are not cited as witness by
prosecution in the present matter. The subsequent FIR in year 2025 registered at
Crime No.114/2025 P.S. Khilchipur, District - Rajgarh(Biaora)(M.P.) also has no
bearing on trial in the present matter. There is no material suggesting deliberate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:988
5 MCRC-17625-2025
violation of condition of bail or other supervening circumstance relating to alleged
offence warranting cancellation of bail. 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.
In view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion that no
case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents No.2 and
3 vide order dated 13.04.2023 and 27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023
and M.Cr.C. No.17674/2023. [Also relied on- Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P.,
(2024) 4 SCC 222.].
Consequently, present petition is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
