― Advertisement ―

HomeKailash Devbulid (India ) Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh...

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

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.

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