IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42686 of 2024 SHUBHAM KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anand Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Aditya Gupta, P.L. for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Amanulla Usmani, counsel for respondent No.2.

ORDER By way of present application under section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail which is granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed in B.A.No.271/2024 passed by Second Upper Sessions Judge, Sihora District Jabalpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of the court towards the application which was filed prior to registration of F.I.R before the concerned police station, has submitted that the police has taken cognizance of this application, the offence is required to be registered under section 304-B of IPC instead of offence under section 108 of BNS, 2023 which is equivalent to section 306 of IPC. He has also submitted that police has taken into consideration of this probably investigation is carried out under different section and the court would have not considered the case of the respondent No.2 for consideration of bail. He has further submitted by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Cr.A.1162-1163/2019 in case of Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Barwad Vs. State of Gujrat and has submitted that when the bail is granted on the ground of arbitration exercise of discretion ignoring the relevant material to be considered in application for bail, the cancellation of bail application is required to be considered and, therefore, he has submitted that in view of this, the impugned order passed by the trial court by granting bail is required to be set aside by directing the trial court to consider all this material available with the police and thereafter decide the application afresh for granting bail to respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the submission made at the Bar and by perusing the impugned order, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is a well reasoned order. The trial court has considered the case of the respondent No.2 after filing of the charge sheet before the trial court. He has further submitted that at no point of time, the present applicant has raised any objection before the trial court regarding filing of the charge sheet and thereafter also at the time of consideration of the application for bail by the trial court. He has submitted that trial court has decided the application which is filed pursuant to the basis of F.I.R and after carrying out proper investigation on the basis of charge sheet. The reasoned order is passed by the trial court and is considered appropriately. Therefore, he has submitted that the trial court has also considered the relevant case law like Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sainger Vs. State of M.P.- 2002(2) JLJ-275 and Neeraj Vs. State of M.P.-2013(1) M.PWN(III) while considering the application for bail. When bail application is filed pursuant to the offence under section 108 of BNS, it cannot be proper on the part of the applicant to say without raising any objection before the trial court that the offence should have been registered under section 304((b) of IPC to section 80 of BNS, 2023. Merely, the order of bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 is not acceptable to the applicant being the near relative of deceased, is not good ground for consideration of any application for cancellation of bail. He further submits that court should be very slow in deciding the application for cancellation of bail, once the bail is granted by a reasoned order and by considering the material available on record.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar.

5. There is not dispute about the proposition of law in the cases which is cited by counsel for applicant in cas