IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52613 of 2025 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus RINKU YADAV Appearance:

Dr. Ms. Anjali Gaynani- GA appearing on behalf of State.

Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER The present application under Section 483 (3) of B.N.S.S. has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by this Court vide order dated

4.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.50354/2025.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant/ State that the aforesaid bail application was taken up for hearing and was allowed. However, erroneously the criminal antecedents of the respondent escaped the attention of this Court due to which the bail was granted. It is submitted that this material fact was also argued and disclosed by at the time of hearing of the bail application. It is further submitted that as of now, the investigation is pending in the present case. It is further submitted that name of the respondent has also been disclosed in connection with another FIR no. 494/2025 dated 03.11.2025 registered at police station Gwalior District Gwalior for offence punishable u/s 109, 296, 191 (2) and (3), 190 BNS.

3. Heard.

4. The grounds on which bail can be cancelled is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case the case of Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349: 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] has held as under:

"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 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."

5. In the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956, the Apex Court has held as under:

"19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439 (2) CrPC."

20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439 (2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over- expansion of the issue was no