The court emphasized that the power to cancel bail demands overwhelming proof of changed circumstances or misuse of bail, maintaining that courts must be slow to intervene in bail decisions.

ORDER :

Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.

This petition under Section 483 (3) of BNSS has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.10.2024 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, District Morena in Bail Application No. 614/2024 in connection with Crime No.144/2024 registered at Police Station - Mata Basaiya, District Morena.

2. As per prosecution story, marriage of deceased was solemnized with co- accused Ramu Yadav (husband) on 18.4.2024. After the marriage, deceased was being harassed by respondent No.2 Urmila (mother-in-law) and co-accused persons namely Ramu Yadav (husband), Raghuraj (brother-in-law) and Rinku (brother-in-law) for demand of motorcycle and money in dowry and they also used to beat the deceased due to which she committed suicide. Upon this, FIR bearing Crime No. 144/2024 was registered against respondent No. 2 / accused for offence under Sections 80 , 85, 3(5) of BNS and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against present applicant Urmila (mother-in-law) and co-accused Ramu yadav (husband of the deceased). During the course of investigation, respondent No. 2 was arrested. Respondent No. 2 filed bail application before the court below which was allowed vide order impugned against which the present application for cancellation has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 has been granted benefit of bail without considering the gravity of offence and material available on record. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 along with co- accused persons used to abuse the deceased, beat her every day, make demands for a motorcycle and money in dowry and harass her physically and mentally. It is further submitted that last rites of the deceased were also performed by the family members of the petitioner because all the in-laws had already fled away after committing murder of the deceased. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramadhar Baghel vs. State of M.P. decided on 14.03.2022 in M.Cr.C.No.58792/2021 and contended that if the complainant challenges the order of grant of bail before the superior Court on the ground that the bail has been erroneously granted without considering the allegations levelled against the accused, then the superior Court can always consider the severity of the allegations. The Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail. Following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. by order dated 20.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.571/2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramadhar Baghel (supra) has rejected the bail granted in favour of the respondent by the Sessions Court as no reason has been assigned by the Court for grant of bail.

4. It is also submitted that where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. Therefore, it is prayed to recall/cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 granted by the court below.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the petition and argued that learned court below after considering all aspects of the