IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48725 of 2025 ROHIT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Anant Athawale, Advocate with Shri Ronak Badawaya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Tanuj Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER The present petition is being filed under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C./Section

483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents No.2 - Sujjan Singh, vide order dated 23.02.2023, passed in Cri.A. No.2988/2023 in connection with FIR/Crime No.414/2022 registered at Police Station - Susner, District Agar Malwa(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 325, 294, 506, 34, 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)s), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(VA) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contends that the respondents No.2 - Sujjan Singh was extended benefit of anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.02.2023, passed in Cri.A. No.2988/2023 subject to condition that he shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sujjan Singh has committed another offence which was reported by petitioner - Rohit Kumar to P.S. Susner. FIR at Crime No.205/2025 for offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (द), 3(1) (ध) and 3(2) (VA) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, was registered against Meharban Singh and Sujjan Singh. Thus, Sujjan Singh has violated the conditions for grant of bail. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 - Sujjan Singh vide order dated 23.02.2023, passed in Cri.A.

No.2988/2023 be cancelled.

Per Contra, learned counsel for appearing for the respondent No.2 - Sujjan Singh referring to Annexure-R/2 submits that petitioner Rohit Kumar was examined on 22.07.2023 as PW1. He did not allege any threatening in his evidence. The trial with regard to Crime No.414/2022 is proceeding at appropriate pace. 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 in the trial. Therefore, the petition is meritless.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial in earlier matter is underway. The final report has been submitted in subsequent prosecution at Crime No.205/2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was at loss to explain which witness was tampered due to conduct of respondent No.2 alleged in subsequent prosecution at Crime No.205/2025.

Considered.

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 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 acc