IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17625 of 2025

MAHESH SHARMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Manish Kumar Vijaywargiya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sunit Kapoor, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Unnit Jhanjhari, Advocates for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

ORDER complainant had reported to the Court that during her evidence on 06.11.2023, accused Dhan Singh has threatened her. The trial Court warned Dhansingh not to speak or threaten the complaint. It goes to show that the respondent/accused Dhansingh attempted to influence and threaten the witness. Learned counsel further referred to the FIR at Crime No.233/2023 registered at P.S. Khilchipur, District - Rajgarh(Biaora)(M.P.) by Shrinath Sharma that the witnesses were threatened by Dhan Singh and Subash Sharma. Learned counsel also referred to FIR at Crime No.114/2025 registered at P.S. Khilchipur, District Rajgarh(Biaora) (M.P.) lodged by petitioner - Mahesh regarding threatening and assault by Subash Sharma to him and his wife over previous dispute. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondents No.2 - Subash Sharma and No.3 - Dhan Singh vide order dated 13.04.2023 and 27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023 and M.Cr.C.

The present petition is being filed under section 483(3) of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents No.2 - Subash Sharma and No.3 - Dhan Singh, vide order dated 13.04.2023 and 27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023 and M.Cr.C. No.17674/2023 respectively, in connection with FIR/Crime No.256/2022 registered at Policer Station - Khilchipur, District Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 365, 34, 366, 344, 376, 376(2)(N), 376(D) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in

the application, contends that the respondents No.2 - Subash Sharma and No.3 - Dhan Singh were extended benefit of bail vide order dated 13.04.2023 and 27.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.14748/2023 and M.Cr.C. No.17674/2023 respectively subject to condition that they shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Learned counsel referring to the evidence of complainant(PW1) submits that the

No.17674/2023 deserves to be set aside.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3/complainant submits that the evidence of complainant was recorded on the same day when she was allegedly abused by Dhansingh. There was no hindrance in the trial. Shrinath Sharma or his family members are not witness to the present prosecution. There is ongoing dispute between the parties as complainant had left her matrimonial home and went to live with Dhansingh. All these FIRs are lodged in reference to that dispute. 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 contends that mere registration of subsequent 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 petition is meritless.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the trial is underway. The complainant party has lodged the FIR against Subash Sharma and Dhansingh that shows violation of the condition of bail.

Heard both the parties and perused the record.

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 o