IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE st ON THE 31 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29137 of 2025 SMT. SUNITA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri A.P.S. Tomar - PP for the respondents/State.

None for respondent No.3, even after service of notice.

ORDER The present application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C./Section

483(3) of BNSS has been preferred by the applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused/Respondent No. 3 Munnalal vide order dated 10.02.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.A. No.1508 of 2025 in connection with crime No.05/2025 registered at Police Station Padav District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 296/3(5)/115(2)/109 of BNS read with Sections 3(1)(D)/3(1)(dh)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act.

2. It has been submitted that the respondent was granted bail by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2025 passed in Cr.A. No.1508/2025 subject to certain condition that he shall comply with the provisions of Section 480(3) of BNSS. It is further submitted that the bail was granted without considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that investigation was still pending. It is further alleged that subsequent to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU grant of bail, the injured victim succumbed to his injuries on 28.03.2025, leading to enhancement of the offences to Sections 103 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to offences of murder and attempt to murder, and therefore, the bail granted earlier deserves to be cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2016) 15 SCC 422], Pooran v. Ram Vilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338], and State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37], among others, to contend that supervening circumstances such as the death of the victim justify cancellation of bail. It is also submitted that the respondent has allegedly attempted to threaten the prosecution witnesses and interfere with the course of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further while placing reliance in the matter of Ms. X vs. The State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205; has argued that in circumstances where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added, the accused can either surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences and in the event of a refusal of bail, he can certainly be arrested and in contra, the investigating agency can seek order from the Court under Section 437(5) of BNS or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the accused and his custody and the Court in exercise of the powers under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. can direct taking the accused into custody, who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail on addition of graver and non-bailable offences.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU

5. It was thus, submitted that after grant of bail on 10.02.2025, Section

109 of BNS/307 of IPC and Section 103 of BNS/302 of IPC were enhanced, which are much graver offences than the offences under which the bail was granted, thus, in such supervening circumstances, cancellation of bail is justified.

6. The aforesaid fact has not been opposed by the counsel for the State and it is submitted that in the light of the judgement cited by the counsel for the applicant, the bail deserves to be cancelled.

7. None for the respondent No.3/accused, even after service of notice.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2019)17 SCC 326; was called upon to deal with a situation where an accused was bailed out in a criminal case in which new offences were added subsequently and a question arose there