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

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45434 of 2024 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus BHAWANIPRATAP Appearance:

Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.

Shri Shubham Kusumkar - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER The present application is being filed under section 483(2) of the BNSS,2023 for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent - Bhawanipratap vide order dated 30.10.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.39597/2023 in connection with Crime No.548/2023 registered at Police Station - Station Road, District Ratlam(M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 327, 323, 329, 506 and 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, contends that the respondent - Bhawantipratap was extended benefit of bail vide order dated 30.10.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No.39597/2023, subject to the condition that the respondent shall comply with the conditions as enumerated u/S 437(3) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further referring to the FIR registered at Crime Nos. 924/2024, P.S. Station Road, District Ratlam(M.P.) for offence punishable u/S 232 and 351(2) of BNSS, 2023 contends that eye-witness in earlier offence registered at Crime No. 548/2023 namely, Jacob Jonathan had alleged that Bhawanipratap had threatened to kill him if he deposes against him. He was frightened. Thus, respondent Bhawanipratap had violated the condition for grant of bail by threatening the witnesses. Therefore, the bail granted vide order dated

30.10.2023, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 39597/2023 deserves to be cancelled.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Bhawanipratap submits that the second FIR of Jacob Jonathan was lodged merely to secure cancellation of bail. No offence, as alleged, was committed by the respondent - Bhawanipratap. The eye-witness Bhawnipratap was summoned by the trial Court on 06.11.2023. Instead of appearing for evidence, he lodged false FIR on 11.07.2024 alleging threatening by Bhawanipratap. However, Jacob was examined as PW- 4 on 17.10.2025 and he had supported the prosecution. Jacob did not allege any threatening in his evidence before the trial Court. The trial is not affected by the subsequent false prosecution. The application is meritless.

Heard, learned counsel for 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 accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

These principles have been reiterated in case of CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 296, as under-

“23. It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cance