IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14697 of 2024 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus PINTU @ BANWARI LAL GUPTA Appearance:

Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for the applicant/State. Shri Akshay Namdeo - Amicus Curiae for the respondent/accused.

ORDER The present application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused-respondent Pintu @ Banwari Lal Gupta vide order dated 20.06.2022 passed in CRA No.7935/2021 in connection with crime No.140/2021 registered at Police Station - Rajendragram, District - Anuppur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(da)(dha) and

3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State that the respondent/accused was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 20.06.2022 passed in CRA No.7935/2021 and he was directed that the respondent/accused shall also comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. It has now been brought to the notice of this Court that after release on bail, respondent/accused is engaged in the criminal activity.

Istagasa No.30/2023 under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and Crime No.126/2023 for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC at P.S. Rajendragram, District - Anuppur (M.P.) have been registered against respondent/accused. Therefore, prays is made to cancel the bail application of respondent/accused.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent/accused has submitted that respondent/accused has not committed similar offence and he has not breached the condition enumerated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. The complainant in Crime No.126/2023 is different from the complainant in the case wherein bail has been granted to the respondent/accused. There is no report that he is hampering the progress and trial of the case in which he was granted bail. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the application filed u/s

439 (2) of Cr.P.C.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. After perusal of record, I am not convinced with the grounds raised in this application and in fact, the bail granted to the respondent in M.Cr.C. No.31685 of 2022 cannot be cancelled only because vide Crime No.99/2023, an offence has been registered against him subsequently. The Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, considering the aspect as to under what circumstances, the bail granted in a non-bailable offence, can be cancelled by the Court has observed 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, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the c