Bail cannot be cancelled solely due to new charges without evidence of trial interference; required grounds must be cogent and compelling.

2. Considered.

3. Respondent Sukhdev was extended the benefit of bail for offence punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and sections 353, 332, 427 of the IPC registered at Crime no. 201/2022 at Police Station - Biora City, District - Rajgarh.. subject to the condition that he shall abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C

4. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the FIR at Crime no.

735/2022 registered at Police Station - Biora City, District-Rajgarh, contends that the respondent has again committed offence punishable under section Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL

34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and has violated the condition for grant of bail that he shall not commit similar offence, therefore, earlier bail granted to the respondent be cancelled.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no allegation that the subsequent offence has caused any interference in the trial,. Learned counsel further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhuri Bai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1779 and the order dated 29/08/2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC no. 28999/2024 ( State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Anil Saket), contends that mere registration of FIR or filing of final report is not sufficient to cancel the bail already granted, unless cogent grounds are made out and there is apparent possibility of interference with the trial. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation in Crime No. 735/2022 registered at Police Station - Biora City District Rajgarh for offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and the respondent has been extended the benefit of bail in subsequent offence.The petition is meritless.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

7. The Supreme Court in case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349 , laid down the factors relevant for cancellation of bail already granted, as under-

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

8. These principles have been reiterated in case of CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 296, as under-

“23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of the materials placed on recor