[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sona Pungal vs Satish Meena on 20 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2529
1 MCRC-6552-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6552 of 2025
SMT. SONA PUNGAL
Versus
SATISH MEENA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohit Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the
impugned order dated 14.12.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), District Guna in MJCR No. 1110/2024, whereby the
application filed by the applicant/complainant under Section 483(3) of
BNSS, 2023 for cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she is the complainant
in Crime No. 400/2024 registered at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna
for offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 296 and 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and she was posted as a Teacher at Primary School, Village Barkhedi
Maharaj. On 12.10.2024 at about 6:00 PM, while the applicant was present at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2529
2 MCRC-6552-2025
her house situated at Village Govindpura, respondent No.1 Satish came to
her residence and demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- for consumption of
liquor. Upon refusal, respondent No.1 abused the applicant using filthy and
caste-based language, assaulted her, caused injuries on vital parts of her
body, and extended threats to kill her. On the basis of the said incident, an
FIR was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Raghogarh.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the applicability of provisions
of the SC/ST Act, respondent No.1 was granted bail vide order dated
17.10.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 797/2024. Subsequent to his
release on bail, respondent No.1 has continuously misused the liberty granted
to him and has committed further offences. He has repeatedly threatened the
applicant with dire consequences, damaged her residential house, broken
electricity meters, and destroyed plants. The applicant has placed on record
CCTV footage, photographs, electronic evidence, messages, and a CD/Pen
Drive substantiating her allegations. Written complaints were also submitted
by the applicant before the Superintendent of Police, Guna and an
application for protection/transfer was moved before the Collector, Guna,
clearly demonstrating that respondent No.1 continues to pose a grave threat
to the life and safety of the applicant.
It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is a habitual offender
having criminal antecedents. Crime No. 371/2024 has been registered
against him for offences under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Another Crime No. 384/2024 has also been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2529
3 MCRC-6552-2025
registered against him under Sections 341, 294, 323, 427 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. These facts were specifically pleaded before the learned
trial court while seeking cancellation of bail. In view of the continuous
criminal conduct, threats to the complainant, and violation of bail conditions,
the applicant filed an application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of bail. In reply, respondent
No.1 denied the allegations and made frivolous and defamatory assertions
against the applicant, without dealing with the material evidence produced
by her.
It is further submitted that the learned trial court, without appreciating
the gravity of the offences, the criminal antecedents of respondent No.1, his
subsequent misconduct after grant of bail, and the material evidence placed
on record, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 14.12.2024
on wholly untenable grounds, it failed to consider that cancellation of bail
stands on a different footing from grant of bail and misuse of liberty,
intimidation of the victim, commission of subsequent offences, and
tampering with evidence are well-recognized grounds for cancellation of
bail. The impugned order is manifestly illegal, perverse, and contrary to
settled principles of law.
It is further submitted that the learned trial court has ignored relevant
material and has disbelieved the documentary and electronic evidence
produced by the applicant without assigning any cogent reasons, thereby
resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. The liberty of respondent No.1
directly endangers the safety, dignity, and life of the applicant, and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2529
4 MCRC-6552-2025
continued protection of bail in such circumstances defeats the very purpose
of law. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 14.12.2024
deserves to be quashed and the bail granted to respondent No.1 deserves to
be cancelled.
Heard.
The present application has been filed challening the rejection of an
appplication for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 Satish
Meena vide order dated 17.10.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 797/2024.
It is well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court that once bail has been granted, the same should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner. Cancellation of bail is justified only when
there exist exceptional circumstances such as misuse of liberty, violation of
bail conditions, tampering with evidence, threatening of witnesses, or
commission of similar offences after grant of bail.
In the present case, the applicant/complainant has alleged that after
grant of bail, respondent No.1 has been harassing her and in support thereof a
pen drive containing CCTV footage has been produced. However, the said
allegation has been specifically denied by respondent No.1. On perusal of the
record, it is found that the CCTV footage relied upon by the applicant has not
been subjected to any verification or investigation and, therefore, at this
stage, it cannot be conclusively held that respondent No.1 had visited the
house of the applicant or violated any condition of bail. The offences alleged
against respondent No.1 pertain to demand of money for consumption of
liquor and related acts. Considering the nature of allegations and the sections
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2529
5 MCRC-6552-2025
invoked, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The police report submitted in response to the application does not disclose
any independent investigation establishing violation of bail conditions and
merely reflects that discussion was held with the applicant. It is also observed
that if any fresh offence or violation is established upon due investigation,
the concerned police station would be at liberty to take appropriate action in
accordance with law and mere registration of an offence or allegation,
without cogent material demonstrating misuse of liberty, is not sufficient
ground for cancellation of bail.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not
find any exceptional ground warranting cancellation of bail granted to
respondent No.1. The nature of the offence, the material available on record,
and the settled principles governing cancellation of bail do not justify
interference with the bail order dated 17.10.2024. Accordingly, the
application seeking cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
