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

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17576 of 2024 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus MOHIT SHARMA Appearance:

Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary, Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State.

Shri Abhishek Mantri, Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

1. The present petition is being filed under section 439(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent - Mohit Sharma vide order dated 05.02.2024, passed in M.Cr.C. No.3906/2024, in connection with FIR/Crime No.363/2023 registered at Police Station - Pachore, District Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 365, 364A, 302, 120-B, 364, 387 and 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contends that the respondent - Mohit Sharma was granted bail vide order dated 05.02.2024, passed in M.Cr.C. No.3906/2024 with a direction that he shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Learned counsel referring to the FIR registered at Crime No.134/2024 registered at P.S. Pachore, District Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 195-A and 506 of IPC contends that after release on bail, respondent - Mohit threatened the eye-witnesses Balu Bhilala and Shriom Nagar on 04.03.2024 to depose in his favour. Mohit had threatened him also for settling the matter. Accordingly, FIR was registered on 21.03.2024. It goes to show that respondent - Mohit had violated the condition for grant of bail. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondent - Mohit vide order dated 05.02.2024, passed in M.Cr.C.

No.3906/2024 deserves to be set aside.

3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that Nitin Gupta was examined on 09.09.2024 as PW6 and Shriom was examined as PW16 on 23.04.2025. They did not allege any threatening by respondent Mohit in their evidence before the trial Court. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. There was no eye-witness to the incident. False FIR with delay of almost 17 days was lodged to secure cancellation of bail. 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.

4. Heard both the parties and perused the record. Considered.

5. The respondent Mohit was extended benefit of bail vide order dated

05.02.2024, passed in M.Cr.C. No.3906/2024. Considering the facts of the case and aforesaid submissions, it appears that there is no eye-witness of the incident and entire prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the FIR alleging that eye-witnesses Balu Bhilala and Shriom were threatened, does not appear to be correct allegation. The delay in lodging of FIR and non-mentioning of any threat by the witnesses before the trial Court is material circumstance for consideration.

6. 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 th