Bail cancellation requires substantial compelling reasons; mere allegations or FIRs do not justify revocation of bail.

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 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 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'bel 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 Generally speaking, the