Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Narani Chokotiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18333
1 MCRC-15196-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15196 of 2024
SMT. NARANI CHOKOTIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for applicant.
Shri V P S Tomar - Panel Lawyer for State.
Shri Faisal Ali Shah - Advocate for respondent/Stae.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15298 of 2024
SMT. NARANI CHOKOTIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for applicant.
Shri V P S Tomar - Panel Lawyer for State.
Shri Faisal Ali Shah - Advocate for respondent/Stae.
ORDER
Both these petitions have under Section 439(2) Cr.PC have been filed
by the wife of complainant in crime No. 876/2022 registered at Police
Station Thatipur District Gwalior for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506,
34 of IPC seeking cancellation of the bail granted in favour of accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 8/22/2025
10:56:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18333
2 MCRC-15196-2024
Rajesh Chokotiya and Aniket @ Ankit Chokotiya vide orders dated
01.03.2023 and 21.04.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 9880 of 2023 and 15396
of 2023 by the Coordinate Bench.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused
persons are misusing the liberty of bail so granted to them. It is also
submitted that after release on bail, the accused persons of this case are
continuously threatening and exerting pressure on the applicant for
compromise and in this regard, she had filed complaints before concerned
SHO and Superintendent of Police. The accused persons tried to disrobe the
victim and her family members by giving serious threats and assaulting the
applicant and her son, resultantly, FIR bearing crime No.199 of 2023 was
registered against accused Rajesh Choktiya and two others. On 22.11.2023,
the applicant and her son were assaulted by the present accused Ankit and
Rachna. For the same incident, the applicant had lodged an FIR against the
accused Ankit and Rachna under section 323,294,506 and 34 which was
registered as Crime No-789/23. On 14/03/24, the applicant had made a
complaint to the SHO, P.S. Thatipur and S.P. Gwalior regarding the incident
of the same day as she was called upon in the witness box in Case/Trial
No.171/23 to give her statements but when she was on the way, she was
stopped by the accused Rajesh, Rachna and other persons stating that if she
gave statements in the court, she and her son will be shot, consequently, the
police authorities of P.S. Thatipur on 22/03/24 registered FIR bearing crime
number 171/24 against the accused persons Rajesh and Aniket. As the
accused persons are misusing the liberty of bail so granted to them and are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 8/22/2025
10:56:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18333
3 MCRC-15196-2024
compelling the complainant/applicant to compromise the matter, therefore,
learned counsel for the applicant prays for cancellation of bail granted to the
accused persons by allowing this petition filed under Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Pooja Bhatia Vs. Vishnu Narain Shivpuri in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)
No.766/2014 vide order dated 10.03.2014 and Jayaben Vs. Tejas Kanubhai
Zala and another reported in (2022) 3 SCC 230.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused in
both the petitions while referring to order of this Court passed on 01.03.2024
in M.Cr.C. No. 49027/2023 in the matter of Santosh Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
and another has argued that merely on the basis of registration of FIR against
the accused, the bail cannot be cancelled and it is only when charge-sheet has
been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court that an offence
can be said to have been committed by the accused, as it is at the stage of
framing of charge that trial Court forms an opinion that the accused has
committed an offence and not at earlier point of time. Since the word
‘commit’ means to be guilty of a crime. Thus, it was prayed that the present
petitions being without sum and substance deserves to be dismissed.
4. After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that law with regard
to cancellation of bail is well settled. In the matter of Dolat Ram Vs. State of
Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] it has held by this Court
as under:
“Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for
an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 8/22/2025
10:56:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18333
4 MCRC-15196-2024
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”
5. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mubin and Ors.; 2011 Crl. L.J.
3850, the Court has held as under;
“9. The primary question which is to be considered by us in this
case is a s to whether the accused applicants had committed any
offence, during the pendency of the appeal, on account of lodging
of some first information reports. In other words, can it be said
that a person has committed an offence when a first information
report is lodged against him. In our considered opinion, merely
lodging of a first information report, does not amount to
commission of an offence and it is only accusation/allegation
which can be said to be leveled against the accused person at the
stage. As a matter of fact, the question as to whether an offence
has been prim-facie committed or not is considered when an
opinion is formed by the Court after applying mind on the material
before it. That stage would come only at the time of framing of
charge. It would be relevant to mention here that the legislature, in
its wisdom, has clearly laid down the distinction in the provisions
under Section 228, Cr. P.C. and the terminology used at the stages
prior to it. The relevant provisions of the Code of criminal
procedure is as under:- “228. – Framing of charge – (1) If, after
such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence which –
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may,
frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case
for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (or any other Judicial
Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial
Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon suchSignature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 8/22/2025
10:56:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:183335 MCRC-15196-2024
Magistrate) shall try the offence i n accordance with the procedure
for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.”
In other words, an accused can be said to have committed an
offence only when a Court, after considering the material before it
and hearing the parties, forms an opinion to that effect, at the time
of framing of charge. It is only after judicious consideration by a
Court and an opinion is formed by it for presuming the
commission of an offence that an accused can be said to have
committed an offence. Therefore, an offence can be said to have
been committed only at the stage of framing of charge when the
concerning Court forms an opinion for presuming that the accused
has committed the offence and not at earlier point of time. The
word ‘commit’ as per Johnson Dictionary means ‘to be guilty of a
crime.”
6. On the basis of aforesaid judgments it could be very well said that
only when charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the
trial Court in an offence that it can be said that a person has committed an
offence and merely registration of FIR would not amount to commital of an
offence and as there is no material placed before this Court to show that after
registration of the FIR, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been
taken against respondents, there is no reason to recall the order granting bail
to respondents.
7. So far as judgment relied by counsel for the applicant rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayaben (supra) is concerned, on
comparing the facts and circumstances of the said case with the case on hand,
it appears that the same stands on a different footing. No-doubt, such
authoritative and salutary principles are bound to be observed as part of
judicial discipline, but here, the ratio is not possible to be applied in a
mechanical form by ignoring the facts of the case as is visible from the case
on hand, and as such, the Court is of the considered opinion that no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 8/22/2025
10:56:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18333
6 MCRC-15196-2024
supervening circumstance nor any distinguishable circumstances are placed
before the Court which may warrant the Court to exercise discretion for
cancellation of bail.
8. In Pooja Bhatia (supra), though considering conduct of accused i.e.
charge of throwing acid on complainant, Court held that it was a serious
aspect and therefore, accused is not entitled to continue with the benefit of
bail, but in the present case, after releasing of aforesaid accused persons,
both the parties have filed multiple FIRs against each other. In the said
judgment, it has also been held that it must also be remembered that rejection
of bail stands on one footing but as cancellation of bail is a harsh order
because it interferes with the liberty of an individual, hence it must not be
lightly resorted to. Thus, the said judgment is of no help to the applicant.
9. Consequently, present petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted
in favour of accused Rajesh Chokotiya and Aniket @ Ankit Chokotiya vide
orders dated 01.03.2023 and 21.04.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 9880 of
2023 and 15396 of 2023 by the Coordinate Bench are hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 8/22/2025
10:56:35 AM