Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pavan @ Gole @ Bhole Rajawat on 4 March, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4786
1 MCRC-245-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 245 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PAVAN @ GOLE @ BHOLE RAJAWAT
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for applicant/State.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
The applicant has preferred this application under Section 439(2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “CrPC“) for cancellation of bail
granted to the respondent vide order dated 23.06.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.28768/2022 in relation to Crime No.275/2021 registered at Police Station
Umari, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 of
IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act.
2. The application for cancellation of bail has been filed mainly on the
ground that after granting bail to the respondent by this Court in the aforesaid
offence, two other Crime No.72/2023 for offence punishable under Section
363 of IPC and Crime No.262/2023 for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376-D, 342 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been registered
at same Police Station Umari, District Bhind.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/5/2025
3:34:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4786
2 MCRC-245-2024
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that respondent is
misusing the liberty granted by this Court and he has also violated the terms
and conditions mentioned under Section 437(3) of CrPC.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the bail order dated 23.06.2022, it is clear that
while granting bail to the respondent, coordinate Bench of this Court
imposed only one condition that “respondent will present before the Court on
the dates given by the concerned Court”. Apart from this, no such condition
has been imposed upon the respondent that he should not commit any other
offence after releasing on bail.
6. In a case of Rajiya Vs. State of Haryana in CRM-M35903-2023
decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the said
Court considering various judgments of Supreme Court and also of different
High Courts has observed as to what should be the yardstick and criteria for
cancellation of bail. It has been observed by the Court that merely because
after granting bail, a crime has been registered against a person to whom bail
was granted and if there was no any such condition imposed while granting
him bail, then that cannot be the sole ground for cancelling the bail.
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that cancellation of bail and the
power of cancelling bail cannot be exercised by the Court in a mechanical
manner. In the instant matter, there is no such condition imposed upon the
respondent/accused while granting him bail that he should not commit the
same offence after releasing the bail, therefore, registration of subsequent
offence does not prejudice smooth trial of the case, in which the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/5/2025
3:34:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4786
3 MCRC-245-2024
has been granted bail. Hence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out.
8. Accordingly, this application for cancellation of bail is hereby
rejected.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/5/2025
3:34:30 PM
[ad_1]
Source link