ORDER

This bail application has been filed by the applicant / State under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C/ 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation bail granted to the respondent vide order dated 25.09.2025, passed in M.Cr.C.No.42882 of 2025 on the ground of violation of conditions of bail order.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/State that after granting bail with the condition that the respondent would abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, however, he has again committed crime of similar nature bearing FIR/Crime 22/2026 and thereby violated the condition of earlier bail granted, therefore, the bail granted to him by order dated 25.09.2025 ought to be cancelled. On these grounds, it is prayed that application for cancellation of bail filed by the applicant/State be allowed.

3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / accused has submitted that FIR bearing Crime No. 22/2026 does not contain the name of the respondent. The accused persons in the crime are namely Ashok and Kamal. It is stated that only on the basis of memorandum of Ashok, the respondent has been made accused in the crime. However, the respondent is having no relation with the crime and memorandum of co-accused is not an evidence in the eyes of law. He has not been convicted in any other case.

4. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, reported as 2025 Supreme (SC) 1149 has categorically held that merely because subsequent FIR has been registered against the accused, it does not become a valid or fair ground to seize the liberty of bail that has been extended to the appellant and exercise of cancellation of bail is a strict one, and needs to be executed in a restrictive manner, only when circumstances demand for it.

5. It is further submitted that the mere registration of an FIR cannot, by itself, be established as a violation of the bail conditions stipulated under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and, therefore, the application is prayed to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, the dictum in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid (supra) is very clear and para 17 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"17. A perusal of the record makes it apparent that even though multiple FIRs have been lodged against the co-accused persons after the appellants' release on bail, i.e. on 22.03.2022, the names F of I R th s e , n in o s r t a a n n t y a a p l p le e g ll a a t n io ts n h h a a v s e b n e o e t n b l e e e v n i e m d e a n g t a io in n s e t d t h in e m ap o p s e t l o la f n t t h s e . s I e t is only in FIR No. 11/2023 dated 23.01.2023 under Sections 143, 332 and 353 of the IPC that the appellants have been named. However, even in the said offence, after due investigation, chargesheet was filed on 10.07.2024, wherein the appellants were not charge-sheeted. Therefore, merely because subsequent FIRs have been registered against the other co-accused persons, it does not become a valid or fair ground to seize the liberty of bail that has been extended to the appellants herein. The exercise of cancellation of bail is a strict one, and needs to be executed in a restrictive manner, only when the circumstances demand for it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the instant case is not a fit one to employ the provisions of cancellation of bail and curb the appellants' liberty."

7. In this case, the name of the respondent has not been mentioned in the subsequent FIR/Crime No. 22/2026. He has been made accused on the basis of memorandum statement and mere registration of subsequent FIR of similar nature cannot be said to be violation of conditions of bail under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jangid (supra).

8 . Aft