IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43457 of 2025 MAHENDRA SINGH TOMAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Atul Gupta with Shri Jitendra Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava- Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.

ORDER

1. The present petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the th respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 08.09.2025 by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that a case was registered against the respondent No.2 at P.S.- Goverdhan, District- Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 294, 506(2), 147, 149, 341, 325, 353, 332 and 186 of IPC because she, being a Sarpanch, with another co-accused person, committed marpeet with the complainant Mahendra Singh Tomar.

The respondent No.2 was granted bail vide order dated 08.09.2025.

3. It is further contended that the order of the trial court granted benefit of anticipatory bail thereby, is arbitrary and illegal. The trial court has overlooked the fact that the respondent No.2 was absconding and evading her arrest. Still, she has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail. Even, after registration of the aforesaid FIR, she committed another offence with the family of the complainant side. Once it is established the respondent No.2/accused was directed involved in the commission of aforesaid offence, as there was sufficient material available on record against the respondent No.2/ accused, then the grant of benefit of anticipatory bail is perverse and against the law because, the respondent No.2, being an influential persons of the vicinity, will try to hamper the investigation and trial as well. Looking to her absconsion history also, it is evident that she may evade the course of justice and will not cooperate in investigation and trial. Hence, the instant th petition may be allowed and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in bail application number B.A.

No.725/2025 deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. However, I am not convinced by the grounds raised in this applicant. The anticipatory bail has been granted to the applicant once only the case is made out. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, while considering the aspect of the circumstances under which bail, once 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 rejecti