Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sundar Sharma on 4 March, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4787
1 MCRC-332-2024
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. 332 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SUNDAR SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for applicant/State.
Shri Arvind Singh Yadav, Advocate for 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 13.03.2023 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.10695/2023 in relation to Crime No.667/2019 registered at Police Station
Dehat Bhind, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 327,
147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 195-A, 294, 329, 307, 302 of IPC.
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, another Crime No.625/2023 for offence punishable under Sections
327, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC has been registered at Police Station Bhind
Dehat, District Bhind.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that respondent is
misusing the liberty granted by this Court and he has also violated the terms
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/5/2025
3:34:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4787
2 MCRC-332-2024
and conditions mentioned under Section 437(3) of CrPC.
4. Learned counsel for respondent/accused opposed the prayer and
prayed for its rejection by submitting that no such condition has been
imposed upon the respondent while granting bail, therefore, he has not
violated any terms and conditions of bail bond.
5. Both the parties heard and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the bail order dated 13.03.2023, 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 Trial
Court during trial on each and every date”. Apart from this, no such
condition has been imposed upon the respondent that he should not commit
any other offence after releasing on bail.
7. 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.
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/5/2025
3:34:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4787
3 MCRC-332-2024
same offence after releasing the bail, therefore, registration of subsequent
offence does not prejudice smooth trial of the case, in which the respondent
has been granted bail. Hence, no ground for cancellation of bail is made out.
9. 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