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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55593 of 2025 ANUP SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shashank Kumar Jain - Advocate (through VC) alongwith Shri Aditya Dixit - Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER The present application has been filed by the complainant under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.2/accused by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 in connection with offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant extract of aforesaid bail order reads as under:

"Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

The bail is manifestation of right to liberty which cannot be deprived of on uncertain factors where especially delay is not attributed to the accused. Speedy trial is concomitant of right to life and personal liberty which appears to have been beached in the present case as trial is pending since long and the petitioner has suffered pre trial detention of about more than one year.

Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.

On being released on bail, the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Application stands allowed and disposed of."

Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submitted that Respondent No.2 has failed to comply with the conditions of bail and has misused the liberty granted to him. It was argued that from the inception of the FIR, the mother of the accused has been continuously attempting to tamper with the evidence, including tampering with CCTV footage installed at the house of the deceased, which led to registration of FIR Crime No.130/2025 at Police Station Bilauva, District Gwalior under Sections 331(3), 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It was further contended that during the examination of a prosecution witness before the Trial Court, an incident occurred in the courtroom which, according to the applicant, demonstrates interference with the judicial process and attempts to influence witnesses. On these grounds, cancellation of bail was sought.

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/accused opposed the application and submitted that no supervening circumstance has arisen after grant of bail, that the accused has not violated any bail condition, and that no material is available on record to establish that the accused has attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Heard.

The law relating to cancellation of bail is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than rejection of bail at the initial stage. Once bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled in a routine or mechanical manner and can be interfered with only upon the existence of supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, commission of a subsequent offence, or where the bail order has been obtained by suppression of material facts or misrepresentation.

In the present case, the allegations levelled by the applicant primarily relate to the conduct of family members of the accu