Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Kushwaha vs Pradeep Sahu on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18751
1 MCRC-40429-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40429 of 2023
MOHANLAL KUSHWAHA
Versus
PRADEEP SAHU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aman Soni - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vivek Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent No.1 & 2.
Shri Santosh Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent
No.3/State.
ORDER
This application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 483(3) of
B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the applicant/victim for cancellation of
bail granted to the respondent No.1 & 2/accused by Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.07.2021 passed in MCRC No.34122/2021 &
MCRC. No.34055/2021 in connection with Crime No.55/2021 registered at
Police Station Nazirabad, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
respondent No.1 & 2/accused have filed an application for grant of bail,
which was allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.07.2021 passed in MCRC No.34122/2021 & MCRC. No.34055/2021 by
imposing the certains and conditions including the condition that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 11-03-2026
11:53:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18751
2 MCRC-40429-2023
respondent No.1 & 2/accused will not involve in any similar offence. It is
further submitted that after granting bail, the respondent No.1 & 2/accused
have again committed other offences, which were registered as Crime
No.1204/2022, 405/2022, 25/2022 & 92/2023 out of which Crime
No.405/2022 registered at P.S. Nazirabad, Bhopal under Sections 294, 323,
325, 506, 34 of IPC is the offence of similar nature. Therefore, they have
violated the terms and conditions of bail. Hence, it is prayed for cancellation
of bail granted to the respondent No.2/accused.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 has opposed the
contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that
earlier an application of cancellation of bail was filed MCRC.
No.10584/2023 and in that case, the complainant was not appearing before
the Court, therefore on 31.01.2023 that case was dismissed for want of
prosecution. Thereafter, there no change in the circumstances of the case. It
is further submitted that the victim has not come before the Court with clean
hands. There was long standing civil dispute between both the parties and
civil dispute has already been settled by the concerned Civil Court in Civil
Suit No.85-A/19, which was decided in favour of accused by judgment and
decree dated 27.04.2024. Against said judgment and decree, an appeal
No.22/24 was filed which was also dismissed by judgment dated 25.10.2024
by Appellate Court. It is further submitted that from the Court of S.D.O.,
Tehsil Berasia, Bhopal in which survey team was constituted and after
inspection, he has given report that complaint of complainant is baseless.
The Panchnama was also prepared on 08.11.2021, which is also in favour of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 11-03-2026
11:53:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18751
3 MCRC-40429-2023
accused. It is further submitted that the accused has given complaints to
various authorities. It is further submitted that the brother of applicant
Shyamlal Kushwaha is already accused in Crime No.149/2022 registered at
P.S. Nazirabad, Bhopal. It is further submitted that due to malafide intention,
present petition for cancellation of bail has been filed. The accused have not
violated the terms and conditions of bail imposed by the Court. Learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 has relied upon the decisions of Apex
Court in (1995) 1 SCC 349 (Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana), 2000
SCC (Cri) 1508 (Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra), decision of
Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of M.P. vs. Rashid Khand @ Arif
Khan order dated 29.08.2024 passed in MCRC. No.29008/2024, State of
M.P. vs. Anil Saket order dated 29.08.2024 passed in MCRC.
No.28999/2024 and decision of High Court of Karnataka in ILR 2020 KAR
1836 (Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan vs. State of Karnataka).
4. Counsel for State by supporting the contention of learned counsel
for the victim has submitted that after granting bail from Coordinate Bench
of this Court, the respondent No.1 & 2/accused have violated the condition
of bail by committing offence of serious nature. Therefore, bail granted to
the respondent No.1 & 2/accused be cancelled and they be directed to
surrender before the Competent Court.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances, the conduct of the
respondent No.1 & 2/accused shows that they have not only failed to abide
by the conditions imposed by this Court but have also misused the liberty
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 11-03-2026
11:53:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18751
4 MCRC-40429-2023
granted to them. The settled position of law is that the power to cancel bail
has to be exercised cautiously, such power can and should be invoked when
the accused misuses the concession granted to him or commits another
offence while on bail.
7. The Apex Court in the matter of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349 , has held “rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted stand on different
footings. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an
order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.”
8. In the matter of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC
21, the Apex Court has observed that bail can be cancelled if the accused
misuses his liberty by indulging in criminal activities, interferes with the
course of justice, tampers with witnesses, or otherwise abuses the concession
granted. Again, in the matter of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16
SCC 508, it was emphasized that if an accused repeatedly engages in
criminal conduct while on bail, the court must step in to cancel such bail to
protect the sanctity of judicial process. In the matter of X v. State of
Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 , the Apex Court has reiterated that liberty
granted under bail cannot be permitted to degenerate into a license for
committing further offences.
9. In the present case, the respondent No.1 & 2/accused have clearly
violated the conditions of bail by committing continuous offence in total 04
cases out of which one case Crime No.405/2022 registered at P.S. Nazirabad,
Bhopal is of similar nature. Their conduct demonstrates misuse of the liberty
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 11-03-2026
11:53:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18751
5 MCRC-40429-2023
granted to them. Continuation of bail in such circumstances would defeat the
ends of justice and erode the sanctity of judicial orders.
10. Accordingly, the bail granted to respondent No.1/accused –
Pradeep Sahu and respondent No.2/accused Laxman Singh Sah vide order
dated 19.07.2021 passed in MCRC No.34122/2021 & MCRC.
No.34055/2021 stands cancelled. The respondent No.1 & 2/accused are
directed to surrender immediately before the trial court. The trial Court shall
issue arrest warrant for their arrest and shall commit them to jail.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerning trial court for
information and necessary compliance.
12. With the aforesaid, this MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
mohsin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 11-03-2026
11:53:22
