IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16194 of 2024 SURESH TRIVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri C. L. Yadav -Senior Advocate Shri Nilesh Sharma-Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Hemant Sharma -Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Krishnapal Singh Khichi-Advocate for the respondent no.2.

ORDER

1] They are are heard and perused the case diary/record.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, for quahsment of the order dated 24.02.2024, passed in case no. RCT 55/2024 for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC arising out of the Crime no.669/2022, whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore has cancelled the regular bail and has issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner.

3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the aforesaid trial in which, he was earlier granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C.No. 61296/2023 dated 10.01.2023, and thereafter, on 03.01.2024, the trial court also granted regular bail to the petitioner after filing of the charge sheet. However, an application was filed by the respondent no.2/the complainant under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. before this Court for cancellation of the bail, which was registered at M.Cr.C.no.34266/2023, on the ground that certain facts were suppressed by the petitioner in his earlier application for anticipatory bail in Cr.C.No.61296/2022, which was decided on 10.01.2023, and this Court allowed the aforesaid application and the anticipatory bail was cancelled. Thereafter, another application for cancellation of bail was filed by respondent No. 2 in the trial Court, which was itself allowed by the trial Court by order dated 24.02.2024, against which the present petition has been filed.

4] Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised two grounds; no.1 that the attention of this Court, in M.Cr.C.no.34266/2023 was not drawn to fact that the petitioner was already granted regular bail by the trial court itself vide order dated 03.01.2024, and secondly, even in the subsequent application for cancellation of the regular bail of the petitioner, the JMFC has decided the same without even issuing notice to him and has issued arrest warrants against the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that on both the grounds, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5] Counsel for the State as also the respondent no.2 have opposed the prayer. However, it is not denied that the factum of petitioner's regular bail was not brought to the notice of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.34266/2023, and it is also not denied that in the subsequent application for cancellation of bail, the petitioner was never served any notice of hearing.

6] Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the senior counsel for the petitioner and is of the considered opinion that the impugned order could not have been passed against the petitioner without first serving any notice of hearing, as had the notice been served, he could have also pointed out the trial Court that the fact that the petitioner had been granted regular bail in the High Court was not brought to the notice of this Court. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.02.2024, is hereby quashed, and considering the fact that the case is of 2022, the trial court also directed to expedite the trial.

7] The M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE moni