IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11354 of 2024 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus RAVI Appearance:

Shri Ravindra Shukla - Dy. Government Advocate for the applicant-State.

Shri Aseem Kumar Dixit - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER The applicant/State has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 26.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.58242 of 2021.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that vide Crime No.574/2020 registered at Police Station Banda, District Sagar an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 294, 427, 325 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent, but the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. 58242 of 2021 had enlarged the respondent on bail directing him to abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of CrPC.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has further submitted that after releasing the respondent on bail, vide Crime No.990/2022 at Police Station Banda, District Sagar, the case was registered under Sections 294, 323, 324 and 506/34 of the IPC against him on the report of one Pratap Singh Lodhi. According to him, since the respondent has violated the terms and conditions of order dated

26.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. 58242 of 2021, therefore, the bail granted in his favour be cancelled and he be directed to surrender before the trial Court concerned. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant/State has relied upon the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the CrPC which read as under:-

(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or temper with the evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that the order of bail be cancelled.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a false case was registered against the respondent. In the said case, the complainant namely Pratap Singh Lodhi had denied the incident stating that though there was an oral altercation, but on account of scuffle, he fell down and suffered the injuries and denied the fact that the respondent assaulted him with an axe. Relying upon the statement of complainant of said case namely Pratap Singh Lodhi, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banda, acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him, had passed the judgment on 07.05.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that after releasing on bail, the respondent has neither misused the liberty nor tried to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. He is regularly appearing before the trial Court and assisting in trial, hence, only on the basis that a subsequent case has been registered against the respondent, no case of cancellation of bail is made out.

7. Heard the parties and perused the record.

8. On earlier occasion, in Crime No.574/2020 registered under Sections

147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 294, 427, 325, 302/149 of the IPC, the bail was granted to the respondent. It is also admitted position that subsequent to that a case as a Crime No.990/2022 under Sections 294, 323, 324 and 506/34 of the IPC has been registered against the respondent. It is also worth mentioned here that the complainant of that case namely Prahlad Singh has not supported the prosecution case and as per the judgment of Judic