SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
VEERENDRA JATAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44210 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Mayank Bajpai
For the Respondents: Shri V P S Tomar, Shri Hemant Singh Rana

Cancellation of bail justified due to witness support for prosecution's case.

Headnote:This application under Section 483 (3) of BNSS, 2023 seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent in M.Cr.C. No.41681/2025 related to Crime No.210/2024 for offences under specified sections. The applicant alleges misleading statements regarding witness support for the prosecution. The Court finds that prosecution witnesses indeed supported the prosecution's case, leading to the decision to cancel bail and recall the earlier order. The ruling is that the bail bonds are cancelled, and the respondent must surrender to the Trial Court.

Table of Content
1. cancellation of bail based on witness reliability and prosecution support. (Para 1 , 2)
ORDER

1. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section

483 (3) of BNSS , 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused, whose bail application M.Cr.C. No.41681/2025 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.9.2025 in connection with Crime No.210/2024 registered at Police Station Pichhore, District Gwalior (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections

118 (1), 115 (2), 296, 351 (2), 3 (5), 109 (2) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that during the arguments on the bail application before this Court, the counsel for the Signature Not Verified respondent No. 2 stated that the complainant did not support the prosecution's case in his testimony, while the complainant and other injured witnesses had supported the prosecution's case. In such circumstances, the respondent has misled this Court, therefore, the present application under Section 483 (3) of BNSS be allowed and bail granted to respondent be canceled.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that while making submissions he had referred para 7 of complainant Virendra Kumar, wherein he had admitted that he had not mentioned the name of the respondent no.2 in his police statement and in that context his statement were not reliable and at no point of time his intention was to state that the eye witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and as the respondent no.2 had not violated any terms and conditions of the bail order. This application for bail cancellation be dismissed.

4. On due consideration, and on perusal of the record, this Court is inclined to allow the present application as the prosecution witness had supported the prosecution story in their court statements and any contradiction in their cross-examination cannot be appreciated at the time of granting bail.

5. Accordingly, the order dated 16.9.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.No.41681/2025 is hereby recalled and the bail bonds furnished by the respondent are hereby cancelled, and the respondent is directed Signature Not Verified to forthwith surrender before the Trial Court, if he is not in jail.

6. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top