Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Piyush @ Harsh Arya S/O Shri Santosh Arya … on 5 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17937
1 MCRC-1780-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1780 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PIYUSH @ HARSH ARYA S/O SHRI SANTOSH ARYA AGE 19
ADHYAN ADD INDRA COLONY KOTESHWAR ROAD LASHKAR
GWAL
Appearance:
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the appicant/State.
Shri Brijendra Singh - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred by the applicant/State seeking cancellation of
bail granted to the respondent by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 02.01.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.3721 of 2022.
Short facts of the case are that an FIR being Crime No.843/2022 was
registered at Police Station Bahodapura, District Gwalior, against the
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. In the alleged crime, the respondent was
enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2022 passed in
Criminal Revision No.3721 of 2022.
The grievance of the applicant/State is that after being granted bail, the
respondent has grossly misused the liberty extended to him, inasmuch as six
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 8/19/2025
11:08:19 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17937
2 MCRC-1780-2024
subsequent FIRs have been lodged against him for various offences, which
are as follows:
(i) Crime No.457/2023 – under Sections 341, 336, 294, 506, 34 IPC.
(ii) Crime No.661/2023 – under Sections 336, 506, 34 IPC.
(iii) Crime No.664/2023 – under Section 49-A of M.P. Excise Act.
(iv) Crime No.464/2023 – under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
(v) Crime No.682/2021 – under Sections 294, 323, 427, 506, 34 IPC.
(vi) Crime No.66/2023 – under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
According to the applicant, registration of the aforesaid FIRs clearly
demonstrates that the respondent has breached the conditions implicit in
Section 437(3) Cr.P.C., thereby disentitling him from the concession of bail.
He further submits that respondent’s continuous involvement in criminal
activities amounts to “abuse of the liberty of bail,” warranting cancellation
under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondnet submits that no material
has been placed to show that in any of the above FIRs, charge-sheets have
been filed or that cognizance has been taken by the competent court.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The law on cancellation of bail is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] held
that:
“Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail
already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds forSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 8/19/2025
11:08:19 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17937
3 MCRC-1780-2024
cancellation of bail are: interference with administration of
justice, evasion of due course of justice, abuse of concession
granted, or possibility of absconding. Bail once granted
should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.”
Similarly, in Bhuri Bai vs. State of M.P. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956] ,
the Apex Court reiterated that unless there are strong circumstances based on
supervening events showing misuse of liberty, bail once granted should not
be lightly cancelled.
The Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Mubin [2011
CriLJ 3850] categorically held that mere registration of an FIR does not ipso
facto establish commission of offence. It is only at the stage of framing of
charge, when a court forms a prima facie opinion, that an accused can be said
to have committed the offence.
In the present case, though multiple FIRs have been lodged against the
respondent post grant of bail, the record does not indicate that in any of these
cases, investigation has culminated in filing of charge-sheet or that
cognizance has been taken. Mere registration of FIRs, without further
judicial finding, cannot be equated with commission of offence nor can it, by
itself, justify cancellation of bail.
At the same time, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the repeated
allegations against the respondent, which prima facie indicate a criminal
proclivity and propensity to indulge in unlawful activities.
In view of the settled legal principles and material on record, this
Court does not find any cogent ground to recall the order dated 02.01.2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 8/19/2025
11:08:19 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17937
4 MCRC-1780-2024
granting bail to the respondent. Accordingly, the present application under
Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail fails and is hereby
dismissed. However, it is made clear that liberty is reserved to the State to
renew its prayer for cancellation of bail if any of the subsequent FIRs mature
into filing of charge-sheet and cognizance is taken thereupon.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 8/19/2025
11:08:19 AM