[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Billu @ Abhilesh Jaiswal on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24808
1 MCRC-30189-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30189 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BILLU @ ABHILESH JAISWAL
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Thakur - Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
This application under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, has been filed by the applicant/State for setting aside the final order
dated 21.09.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40456 of 2023, by which, the
respondent Billu @ Abhilesh Jaiswal was granted bail in FIR/Crime
No.704/2023 dated 26.08.2023, registered at Police Station-Churhat,
District-Sidhi (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 5/13 of M.P.
Drugs (Control) Act and Sections 8, 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that in the
case of Crime No.704/2023, on 25.08.2023, 13 bottles of Onrex cough syrup
having codeine phosphate were seized from the possession of the
respondent, in which, he was enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench, with
a condition that the respondent shall abide by all the conditions enumerated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24808
2 MCRC-30189-2024
under Section 437(3) of CrPC. It was further clarified that the breach of any
of the conditions of bail order shall make it ineffective.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has further submitted that
after granting bail, on 31.12.2023, the respondent was found selling 113
bottles of cough syrup, but in that case also, he was released on bail. It is
submitted that the respondent has violated the terms and conditions
mentioned in the bail order, hence, his bail order be cancelled and he be
taken into custody and sent to jail.
4. Submitting the case diary of Crime No.704/2023, learned counsel
for the applicant/State has argued that from the possession of the respondent,
after following due procedure of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act,
bottles of cough syrup (having codeine) were recovered. He has also
submitted the FIR of subsequent offence of Crime No.02/2024 registered
against the respondent at Police Station-Churhat on 01.01.2024, in which, it
has been stated that on a secret information that the respondent on his
motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-53-MJ-7731 is transporting the illicit
contraband Onrex cough syrup, a raid was conducted and the vehicle bearing
registration No.MP-53-MJ-7731 was stopped and upon a query, the rider of
the motorcycle told his name Billu @ Abhilesh Jaiswal. After following the
procedure, from a gunny bag which was kept in the petrol tank, total 113
bottles of Onrex cough syrup were recovered and subsequently, an offence
was registered against him and he was arrested.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that from the
report received from the trial Court, it is clear that in relation to Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24808
3 MCRC-30189-2024
No.704/2023, a case has been registered as SCNDPS No.55/2023, for the
offence punishable under Sections 8, 21, 22 of the NDPS Act and Sections
5/13 of M.P. Drugs (Control) Act, which is pending. Another case is also
pending registered as SCNDPS No.26/2024 on the basis of Crime
No.2/2024, the charge sheet has also been submitted before the Special
Court, (NDPS Act). Learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted
that after granting bail to the respondent in Crime No.704/2023, he again
committed the offence of the same nature. On that basis, it is submitted that
the bail order of the respondent be cancelled.
6. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent.
7. I have gone through the FIR of first case and the FIR of Crime
No.02/2024. In both the cases, the respondent was found in his possession of
Onrex cough syrup containing codeine without any prescription or license. In
the subsequent offence registered against the respondent, charge sheet has
already been submitted and the case is pending before the Special Court.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh and others vs.
State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, in paragraph-16,
has clarified that the Sessions Court and the High Court, may commit a
person to custody, who has already been released on bail under Section 439
of Cr.P.C.
9. Further, in the case of Navas vs. State of Kerala reported in 2023
SCC OnLine Ker 3670, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed
in the case of Puran vs. Rambilas reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338, in paragrgh-
19, the Kerala High Court has held that there is distinction between the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24808
4 MCRC-30189-2024
parameters of grant of bail and cancellation of bail. There is also distinction
between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order
and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such
cancellation. The Kerala High Court has also considered the order of this
Court passed on 01.02.2013 in M.Cr.C. No.701/2013 (Ranjeet Singh vs.
State of M.P.).
10. Further, the Kerala High Court relying upon the judgment passed
in the case of P. vs. Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 552 ,
in paragraphs-18 and 19 has observed as under:
"18. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as above,
the courts are to bear in mind that there is a distinction between
the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal, or perverse
order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the
accused has misconducted himself or due to the happening of
certain supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation.
Insofar as the cancellation of bail by the superior court on the
ground that the order passed by the court granting bail is
unjustified, illegal, or perverse, the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349
shall govern the same. It was observed therein that 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 a 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 canceled in a mechanical manner without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24808
5 MCRC-30189-2024
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.
Insofar as the cases in which the application for cancellation of
bail is filed for misusing liberty, the fact to be taken note of by the
court is whether the conditions have been violated and that the
supervening circumstances warrant the cancellation of bail (See
CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, [(2011) 5 SCC 296])"
"19. In P. v. Madhyapradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
adverted to all the past precedents and has encapsulated the
circumstances under which bail granted to the accused under S.
439 (1) of the Cr. P. C. can be revoked. They are
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal
activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of the investigation;
c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation; g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground
and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial"
11. Thus, from the principles laid down in the above cases as cited by
Hon'ble the Kerala High Court, it is clear that the respondent has misused the
liberty by indulging himself in same criminal activity. One thing is also
noteworthy that when the bail was granted, it was clearly mentioned in
paragraph-7 of the bail order that the applicant (respondent herein) shall
abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
Paragraph -7 is relevant which reads as under:
"7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in
case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24808
6 MCRC-30189-2024
ineffective."
12. From the material available on record, it is clear that first offence
was registered against the respondent vide Crime No.704/2023 as he was
found involved in illegal trafficking of contraband cough syrup and the
subsequent offence was also registered against him for transporting Onrex
cough syrup having codeine without any license or prescription, in which,
the charge sheet has already been submitted and trial is pending. Thus, it
shows that after enlarging on bail, the respondent has violated the terms and
conditions mentioned in the bail order itself, hence, the application filed by
the applicant/State is allowed. Accordingly, the bail order dated 21.09.2023
passed in M.Cr.C.No.40456/2023 in connection with Crime No.704/2023
dated 26.08.2023 of Police Station Churhat is hereby cancelled.
13. The trial Court shall arrest the respondent and send him into
custody till disposal of the case.
14. With above direction, this M.Cr.C. is disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the trial Court concerned
for information and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
