Kailash Devbulid (India ) Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026

    0
    40
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Present application under section 439(2) & 437(5) of Cr.P.C/ Section
    483(3) of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant/company for
    cancellation of bail order dated 25.11.2024 passed in favour of respondent
    No.2 Mayank Londe.

    SPONSORED

    2. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that the trial court has erred in
    not cancelling the bail on erroneous ground by saying that there is no
    material on record to indicate that there is any material to substantiate the
    claim of the complainant/applicant that the accused respondent No.2 is
    misusing the liberty by giving threat. He has further submitted that the trial
    court has unnecessarily made some observation against the present applicant

    NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18974

    2 MCRC-5826-2025
    and by referring to section 340 of IPC he has submitted that there is
    sufficient material to indicate that present applicant was threatened by the
    original accused after his release on bail pursuant to the order passed by the
    trial court and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court can be
    considered as perverse by cancelling the bail granted by the trial court and
    rejecting such application on erroneous grounds. He has submitted that the
    bail can be cancelled considering such grounds where the threats are given
    by the accused person by misusing his liberty. In support of his case he has
    relied on para 32 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
    Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another- (2022)8 SCC 559 and
    para 28 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulab Rao
    Babu Rao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others- (2013) 16 SCC 190
    and has submitted that in view of this position of law, the ground is made out
    to consider the application for cancellation of bail as the present applicant is
    wrongly arraigned by the original accused who is employee of the company
    has misused his position by committing fraud with the company of the
    applicant and also by cheating the applicant. Therefore, the bail granted to
    the respondent No.2 is required to be cancelled considering the ground
    emerges or in the alternative he has submitted that some stringent conditions
    may be imposed that if he is found indulge in any such activity then his bail
    may be cancelled.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here