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

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 59490 of 2025 MANOJ SHAKYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vishal Sharma - Advocate for the applicant. 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 respondents/accused vide order dated 02.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.53631/2025

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been filed on the ground that the applicant obtained benefit of bail by this Court while presenting wrong fact and the charge-sheet was filed. But, the charge- sheet was not filed at that time. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 02.12.2025 ought to be cancelled.

3. However, I am not convinced by the grounds raised in this applicant. The bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled merely because some fact was wrongly presented by the counsel of the accused. The bail is granted to the accused on the basis of overall facts and circumstances of the case and only when the case of bail 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 rejecting bail in a non- bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted."

4. It is well settled that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted and unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439 (2) CrPC.

5. In the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956, the Apex Court has held as under:

"19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439 (2) CrPC."

20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indisci