Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
1 MCRC-47888-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47888 of 2024
RAGHUVEER RAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Yadav - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate with Shri Mahavir Pathak - Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Heard on: 03/07/2025
Delivered on : 21/07/2025
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this instant petition under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge in MJCR No.2462/2024, whereby the application
preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 12.09.2022 has been rejected.
2 . The petitioner had further prayed for cancellation of anticipatory
bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crime
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
2 MCRC-47888-2024
No.31/2021. Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to FIR dated
25.07.2021 bearing Crime No.31/2021 registered at Police Station Aron
District Gwalior against the respondent No.2 along with other co-accused for
offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 120-B of IPC, submits
that respondent No.2 was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail in the
aforesaid crime by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.09.2022
passed in SLP (Criminal) No.5018/2022, wherein it was observed that in the
event, respondent No.2 who is a government servant indulges in interfering
with the witnesses in the process of trial for attempts to exercise his authority
due to his official position or in such other manner, it would be open for the
prosecution or complainant to indicate such specific instances and seek
cancellation of bail. He further submits that subsequently in M.A.
No.1768/2023 (Annexure-P/12) filed by the applicant in SLP (Criminal)
No.7446/2022, the applicant was granted liberty to apply for cancellation of
bail as may be permitted under the law before the learned trial Court.
Counsel for the applicant submits that subsequent to the grant of anticipatory
bail to respondent No.2 in the aforesaid crime, he has misused the liberty
granted to him and the petitioner’s brother Vikram Rawat was falsely
implicated in a case registered under Section 376(2)(n), 376-D, 323, 506 and
34 of IPC vide FIR bearing Crime No.92/2022 and during the course of
evidence in the said crime number, the petitioner by referring to Annexure-
P/6 i.e., the statements of the prosecutrix, tried to contend that the
prosecutrix in her statement stated that it is at the behest of respondent No.2,
the brother of applicant was implicated in the offence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
3 MCRC-47888-2024
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that even in the trial of Crime
No.31/2021, the witnesses were sought to be threatened for which, he
submitted a complaint to the Court concerned on 12.05.2023 (Annexure-P/7)
and the learned Court concerned had recorded the said fact in its order sheet
dated 12.05.2023. Counsel for the applicant further contended that in the
proceedings filed by him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking
cancellation of the anticipatory bail of respondent No.2, the State had filed
its return, wherein the State also contended that there has been alleged
misuse of liberty of bail granted to respondent No.2.
4. Counsel for the applicant further submits that respondent No.2 has
also been implicated for an offence of murder vide FIR dated 09.10.2023
bearing Crime No.591/2023 registered at Police Station Padav District
Gwalior, however, in the said offence, he has been enlarged on bail vide
order dated 09.02.2025 passed in MCRC No.6418/2025. On the strength of
aforesaid submissions, it is contended by counsel for the applicant that in
view of liberty granted to him by the Hon’ble Apex Court he moved an
application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court,
however, the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 has rejected the
said application and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
quashment of aforesaid order dated 21.10.2024 passed by 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior in MJCR No.2462/2024 with further prayer for
cancellation of bail of respondent No.2 on the grounds, as submitted
hereinabove.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
4 MCRC-47888-2024
the instant petition filed by respondent No.2 under Section 528 of BNSS,
seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to him by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is not maintainable, as the only liberty granted to the petitioner was to
approach the concerned trial Court. In the instant case, the concerned trial
Court has considered the application seeking cancellation of bail filed by the
petitioner and has rejected the same by a detailed and reasoned order. Once,
the said application stands rejected, i.e., the end of the matter and now the
petitioner cannot be permitted to further seek cancellation before this Court
by invoking powers under Section 528 of BNSS, as no such liberty was
granted to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in case, the
petitioner is now aggrieved, he is required to approach the Hon’ble Apex
Court. That apart, on merits, by referring to the synopsis of dates chart filed
on behalf of respondent No.2, it is submitted by Shri Vipin Yadav that the
object of filing application for cancellation of bail is for the purpose of
getting accused lodged in jail. In the instant case, on the date of filing of the
application for cancellation of bail, the respondent No.2 was already in jail in
connection with Crime No.591/2023 and therefore, there was no occasion
available to the petitioner to seek cancellation of bail, he further submits that
all the grounds which are raised in the present application and what has been
argued by counsel for the petitioner, were also raised before the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in MCRC No.6418/2025, wherein the respondent No.2
sought regular bail in connection with Crime No.591/2023 and the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 19.02.2025, particularly in
para 6 recorded all the contentions of the petitioner and thereafter, granted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
5 MCRC-47888-2024
bail to respondent No.2, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
re-agitate the entire matter. That apart, it is also submitted by counsel for
respondent No.2 that even on merits, the case of respondent No.2 was
considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court while granting him the benefit of
anticipatory bail. The instant application has been filed with the malafide
object to somehow embroil the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is a
senior govt. officer and is posted at West Bengal. Therefore, all the
contentions raised by the petitioner as regards false implication of the
brother of petitioner, affecting the witnesses of Crime No.31/2021 are
baseless and misconceived and therefore denied. Counsel for respondent
No.2 submits that the parameters on which, the bail granted can be cancelled
are no more res integra, and he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR
(1978) SC 179 with reference to para 16, and the order passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Rashid Khan
passed in MCRC No.2908/2024, vide order dated 29.08.2024.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State supports the counsel for
petitioner.
7. No other ground is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The question to be considered herein is whether the second
respondent/accused herein has misused the liberty granted so as to cancel his
bail. It is true that cancellation of bail is a harsh order and, therefore, the
same cannot be done in a casual manner. For cancelling bail once granted,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
6 MCRC-47888-2024
the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen
or conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial. To put it differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order granting
bail.
10. The law regarding cancellation of bail has already been settled.
The Apex Court in Myakala Dharmarajam and others Vs. State of Telangana
and another (2020) 2 SCC 743 has relied on the decision in the case of
Reghuveer Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and held :-
“Bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused
misuses his liberty by indulging in similar
criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the
course of investigation, (iii) attempts to
tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv)
threatens witnesses or indulges in similar
activities which would hamper smooth
investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his
fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to
make himself scarce by going underground
or becoming unavailable to the investigating
agency, (vii) attempts to place himself
beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The
above grounds are illustrative and not
exhaustive. It must also be remembered that
rejection of bail stands on one footing but
cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it
interferes with the liberty of the individual
and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.
11. In Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and another (2020) 2
SCC 118, the Supreme Court has observed :-
“16. The considerations that guide the power of an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:140717 MCRC-47888-2024
appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order
granting bail stand on a different footing from an
assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail.
The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the
anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary
exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is
whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or
unjustified. On the other hand, an application for
cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil
of the existence of supervening circumstances or
violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom
bail has been granted. In Neeru Yadav v State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2014) 16 SCC 508] the accused was granted
bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of
the High Court, a two judge Bench of this Court
surveyed the precedent on the principles that guide the
grant of bail. Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief
Justice then was) held:
….It is well settled in law that cancellation of
bail after it is granted because the accused has
misconducted himself or of some
supervening circumstances warranting such
cancellation have occurred is in a different
compartment altogether than an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and
perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors
which should have been taken into
consideration while dealing with the
application for bail and have not been taken
note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior
court can set aside the order of such a grant
of bail. Such a case belongs to a different
category and is in a separate realm. While
dealing with a case of second nature, the
Court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened
subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into
the justifiability and the soundness of the
order passed by the Court…..
12. It is thus well settled that once a bail is granted to an accused, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
8 MCRC-47888-2024
same can only be cancelled if it is shown that the bail order suffers from
infirmities or the accused while on bail has misused his liberty and has acted
in such a manner which is prejudicial to the case of prosecution. Cancellation
of bail is a harsh order, as it interferes with the liberty of individual and thus
cannot be restored to lightly.
13. In Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows :
“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, it
appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it
decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High
Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the
factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case
in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already
granted.”
14. In Dataram Singh Vs State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22,
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
9 MCRC-47888-2024
“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.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. &
another, reported in AIR 2022 SC 2514, has held at paragraph No.30 to 34 as
under:-
“30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that
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
trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail,
very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail
(which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this
Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana
laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are
:-
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of Justice
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1407110 MCRC-47888-2024
any manner
(iv) Possibility of accused absconding
(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail
(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the
evidence or threatening witnesses.
31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be
limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances.
This Court certainly has the inherent powers and
discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the
absence of supervening circumstances. Following are
the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be
cancelled :-
a) Where the court granting bail takes into account
irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial
nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the
influential position of the accused in comparison to the
victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there
is prima facie misuse of position and power over the
victim.
c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the
accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order
granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the
first place given the very serious nature of the charges
against the accused which disentitles him for bail and
thus cannot be justified.
g) When the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the
given case.
32. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And
Another 18, the accused was granted bail by the High
Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court,
a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the
precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and
observed as under :-
“12…It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail
after it is granted because the accused has misconducted
himself or of some supervening circumstances
warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a
different compartment altogether than an order granting
bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1407111 MCRC-47888-2024
case, the relevant factors which should have been taken
into consideration while dealing with the application for
bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded
on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior
court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail.
Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a
separate realm. While dealing with a case of second
nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on
the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the
soundness of the order passed by the Court”
33. This Court in Mahipal (Supra) held that: –
“17. Where a court considering an application for bail
fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may
justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate
court is thus required to consider whether the order
granting bail suffers from a non- application of mind or
is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence
on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess
whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there
existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the crime, also taking
into account the seriousness of the crime and the
severity of the punishment.”
34. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam
And Others Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta And
Another19 held that:-
“18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court
has also to consider the gravity and nature of the
offence, prima facie case against the accused, the
position and standing of the accused, etc. if there are
serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be
cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to
him.
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once
bail is granted to the accused then it can only be
cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail, that
factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor.
There are several other factors also which may be seen
while deciding to cancel the bail.”
16. The question now before this Court is as to whether, in the given
facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below exercised its
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
12 MCRC-47888-2024
power in a just and proper manner while passing the order dated 21.10.2024,
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner or not? The learned Court
below took note of the fact that a complaint was made by the present
applicant to the concerned Court, wherein the trial of Crime No.31/2021 is
pending. In the said complaint, the applicant alleged that the accused in that
case along with respondent No.2 were threatening him and instigating him to
enter into an altercation and the learned trial Court even recorded the said
aspect in its order sheet dated 12.05.2023. However, perusal of the order
sheet reveals that the applicant was directed by the learned trial Court to
institute proceedings at the police station. Though, a complaint is stated to
have been made by the present petitioner before the Superintendent of Police
on 18.05.2023 (page no.71 of the petition) however, there is nothing on
record to show that the petitioner (herein) had pursued the matter any further,
either in response to the alleged threats or the inaction of the police
authorities. Accordingly, the learned trial Court turned down the said
contention of the petitioner finding the complaint be vague, baseless,
specious and unsupported, by relying upon the judgment of Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Mubarak Khan Vs. Nasir Khan (1998) CRLJ 4527.
17. Similarly, the contention raised by the petitioner as regards false
implication of his brother Vikram Rawat in FIR bearing Crime No.92/2022
under Sections 376(2)(N), 376-D, 323, 506 & 34 of IPC, has been duly
considered by the Court below, however, the said contention has also been
turned down on the ground that the acquittal of the brother of the present
petitioner namely, Vikram Rawat in the said criminal case was not on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
13 MCRC-47888-2024
account of the said fact, but was for the reason that the complainant had
turned hostile and the prosecution case was also not established in DNA
examination. Thus, the learned Court below concluded that it cannot be
established that the implication of the brother of petitioner in the aforesaid
crime was on account of the acts/omission by respondent No.2 or the same
would lead to an inference that the respondent No.2 is trying to influence the
evidence in the pending trial of Crime No.31/2021. Likewise, the ground
raised by the petitioner in the present petition as regards the implication of
respondent No.2 in Crime No.591/2023 has also been dealt with by the
learned Court below in its impugned order dated 21.10.2024 and the learned
Court below had concluded that from the perusal of charge sheet filed in the
said crime by the Police Station Padav, District Gwalior, prima facie, it is not
discernible that the respondent No.2 had any direct role in the commission of
offence in question and even for the allegation of conspiracy of respondent
No.2 in the said case, as on date, there is no material evidence available.
Thus, learned Court below rejected the said contention of the petitioner as
well.
1 8 . When the reasoning assigned by the learned Court below in
impugned order dated 21.10.2024 is tested on the anvil of the facts of the
case and provisions contained in Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, so
also, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred
hereinabove, governing the grounds on which, the bail already granted could
be cancelled, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order
dated 21.10.2024 impugned in the present petition declining to cancel the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14071
14 MCRC-47888-2024
bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so as to
warrant interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023.
1 9 . Accordingly, the instant petition filed by the petitioner, being
bereft of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN
ANSARI
Signing time: 7/22/2025
6:47:40 PM