Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5913
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
PRAMOD SHANKAR SHRIVASTAVA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12990 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Pradeep Katare
For the Respondents: Shri M P S Raghuwanshi, Shri Vijay Jha, Shri Ankit Saxena
The court identified specific grounds for cancellation of bail while emphasizing that substantial reasoning is required to revoke previously granted bail.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Application filed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent on the ground of failure to consider material facts, with citations from Supreme Court relating to cancellation conditions and instances. (Paras 30-33)
(B) Legal principles - Court findings emphasize that bail should not be cancelled without substantial reasons, and only specific grounds of concern warrant such an order.
(C)
Facts of the case:
An FIR was registered against the respondent for offences under IPC and anticipatory bail was granted. The applicant sought cancellation, stating that conditions for bail were not met.
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the cancellation application as it did not meet the established legal criteria. (E)
Issues: The key issue involved whether the criteria for the cancellation of bail were satisfied. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court listed specific grounds for cancellation as per precedent, affirming the need for cogent reasoning for bail revocation. (G)
Result: Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 7 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12990 of 2025 PRAMOD SHANKAR SHRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Jha, Advocate and Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate appeared for the respondent no.2 Shri Samar Ghurraiya Dy Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER The present application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C . has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no.2 by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 28.1.2025 passed in Bail Application No.254/2025.
Brief facts for disposal of the case are that an FIR bearing Crime No.427/2022 was registered against the respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 of IPC Respondent no.2 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail vide Bail Application No.254/2025 and was granted bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 28.1.2025.
Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that the learned Trial Court by impugned order had not considered certain material facts and as such had erred in passing the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the present respondent no.2 and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jayaben Vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Another reported in 2022(1) Crimes 207 (SC) the order of grant of anticipatory bail to the present respondent is not sustainable and it was further argued that once it is found that the order releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable as a necessary consequence shall have to follow and bail has to be cancelled.
Learned counsel has further argued that so far as merits of the matter is concerned the present respondent have taken Rs.36 Lakhs for providing certain machineries, but the machineries which were provided to the present applicant were defective and when the matter was complained to the respondents that he further asked a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs, but thereafter neither supplied any machinery nor had returned the amount and even the machineries were not called back, but this aspect was not considered by the learned Trial Court while granting bail and as on date neither the machinery has been provided to the present applicant nor the amount has been recovered from the respondents. Thus, it was prayed that the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent no.2 be recalled. On the other hand Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.2 by placing reliance in the matter of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2022) 8 SCC 559 had argued that Signature Not Verified there is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances and the Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. The learned Apex Court while enumerating the instances on which bail can be cancelled in para 33 had given illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled and as the case of present applicant has not fall within the aforesaid parameters or the instances given by the Apex Court, the present M.Cr.C. deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel has further submitted that under the agreement between the parties dated 25.5.2019 there is a dispute resolution mechanism provided, but without availing the dispute resolution mechanism the present applicant has choose to make a complaint and as the very nature of the complaint is of civil nature, the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for anticipatory bail which in absence of any material should not be tinkered lightly. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present application.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After perusing the case diary
