Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sonu @ Dilip Yadav on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
1 MCRC-34352-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34352 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SONU @ DILIP YADAV
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Avi Singh - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This application under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 has been filed by the applicant/State for setting aside the bail order
dated 02.11.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.45147/2022, by which, the
respondent Sonu @ Dilip Yadav was granted bail in connection with
FIR/Crime No.715/2019 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District –
Shahdol (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323 and
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/State has submitted that the
respondent was released on bail on 02.11.2022 under the condition that the
respondent shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of
the Cr.P.C. but violating the terms and conditions of the bail, the respondent
has further committed the offence and FIR bearing Crime No.784/2023 was
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 324 and 506
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
2 MCRC-34352-2024
of the Indian Penal Code, Crime No.65/2024 for the offence punishable
under Sections 341, 327, 329, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Shahdol (M.P.) and Crime No.36/2023
for the offence punishable under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was
registered at Police Station – Sohagpur, District – Shahdol (M.P.). Thus, the
respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the bail order dated
02.11.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.45147/2022, hence, the bail granted to the
respondent be canceled in the interest of justice.
3. Petition is supported by an affidavit of Shri Raghvendra Dwivedi,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter Shahdol, District Shahdol
(M.P.) along with list of criminal record of the respondent and FIRs of
Crime No.784/2023, Crime No.65/2024 registered at Police Station –
Kotwali, District – Shahdol (M.P.) and Crime No.36/2023 registered at Police
Station – Sohagpur, District – Shahdol (M.P.).
4. The notice was served on the respondent. The respondent in his
reply has submitted that merely on registration of subsequent FIR itself is not
a ground for cancellation of bail. There should be very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances to cancel bail already granted and the bail
cannot be cancelled in mechanical manner. It has further submitted that the
respondent was released on bail and this Court while granting the bail had
already considered the previous criminal record of the respondent. The
respondent has not violated any condition imposed under Section 437(3) of
Cr.P.C. or in the bail order. The allegation of misusing the liberty is false,
vague and not supported by the documents. Further, relying upon the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
3 MCRC-34352-2024
judgments, he has submitted that the respondent is cooperating fully with the
Court and no purpose would be served by sending him into custody after two
years of bail, specifically when the trial is progressive normally.
5. Heard the parties and perused the record.
6. I have called the status report and the case diaries from the State, in
which case diary of Crime No.784/2023 and Crime No.65/2024 were
submitted.
7. From the case diary as submitted by the State, in the Crime
No.65/2024, FIR was lodged by one Rakesh Barman S/o Ramesh Barman
alleging that on 31.03.2024 at 10:00 PM, he was going on motorcycle to
Pondanala Petrol Pump and after taking petrol when he reached near
Singhpur road liquor shop, then Mony Yadav, Pappu Yadav and Sonu Yadav
by giving signal stopped him and after abusing demanded Rs.500/- for
consuming alcohol. When he stated that he has no money, all the three
persons have further uttered filthy abuses and assaulted him by hands, fists
and lathi. From the case diary, it is also clear that the charge sheet has been
submitted and medical examination of Rakesh Barman was made on the
injuries caused to him. The respondent was arrested and the charge sheet has
been submitted before the competent Court.
8. In the same way, as per the case diary of Crime No.784/2023, report
was lodged by one Shriraj Singh Sengar at Police Station – Kotwali, District –
Shahdol (M.P.) on the ground that on 22.11.2023, in his car bearing
registration no. MP 18 ZA 6298, he was going along with parents of his
friend Saif Khan to drop them at railway station and after dropping them at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
4 MCRC-34352-2024
railway station, when he was going to Singhpur road, Pondanala at about
02:30 AM, when he reached near Sardar wood shop, Sonu Yadav stopped his
car and after that the respondent Sonu Yadav demanded cigarette when he
has not given cigarette to him then he started abusing and assaulted him by
knife and threatened him. Statements of Shriraj Singh Sengar, Santoshi Singh
Sengar, Prince Pathak and Saif Khan were recorded and the charge sheet has
been submitted before the competent Court. As per the entry in the case
diary, in the District Hospital, he was given treatment.
9. The third case vide Crime No.36/2023 was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act on the ground that
0.315 bore firearm and two live cartridges were recovered from the
possession of the respondent, in which the respondent has been acquitted by
the trial Court.
10. Thus, the fact of the applicant/State that after grant of bail, the
respondent has repeated the offence of causing injury, filthy abuses and
threatening to the person of public has been registered. Charge sheet has
been submitted and in one case for the offence punishable under Sections 25
and 27 of the Arms Act has been registered at Police Station – Sohagpur,
District Shahdol (M.P.), this respondent has been acquitted.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Apex
Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in
(1995)(1) SCC 349 has observed that 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
5 MCRC-34352-2024
circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail
already granted. Generally, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 and the satisfaction of
the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of
the accused absconding is also another reason for justifying the cancellation
of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering 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.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the
judgement of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Anil Saket passed in
M.Cr.C.No.28999/2024 dated 29.08.2024 , Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has elaborately discussed the principles of cancellation of bail.
13. In the case of Anil Saket (supra), the case of Hon’ble the Apex
Court, Dolat Ram (supra) has been discussed. Further, relying on the
judgement of Rajiya Vs. State of Harayana reported in CRM-M-35903-
2023 as also considered the case of Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar
Mishra and another, 1999 AIR (Supreme Court) 3026 and the Coordinate
Bench came to the conclusion that except in the cases of subsequent
registration of the crime against accused by itself cannot result in automatic
cancellation of bail and if the allegation in the subsequent offence are the
same as the case in which the applicant was granted bail, the Court should
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
6 MCRC-34352-2024
consider the aspect as to whether the subsequent offence otherwise
prejudicial to smooth trial of the case, in which bail has been granted or
otherwise attempt to evade the due course of justice or misuse the liberty
granted to the accused in any manner.
14. In this case, it is clear that it is not a case of cancellation of bail
granted to the applicant on the basis that case of the bail is not met out or the
reasons stated in the bail by the Subordinate Court was absurd or contrary of
the record or the reasons given for granting bail were perverse. It is the case
of the State against the respondent is that after the bail order was passed in
his favour and he was released on bail, he has repeated the offence of same
nature.
15. In the case of Navas vs. State of Kerla reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Ker 3670 hon’ble the Judge of the Kerla High Court has discussed
different judgments of the Apex Court in paragraphs No.16 to 19, held as
under:
“16. In Abdul Basit alias Raju v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Cahudhary7,
the Apex Court relying on the observations in Gurcharan Singh
(supra) and Puran (supra), had observed as follows in paragraph
No. 19 of the judgment:
19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from
the concept of cancellation of a bail on the ground of
accused’s misconduct or new adverse facts having
surfaced after the grant of bail which require such
cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions
would present before us that an order granting bail can
only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary
to law by the court superior to the court which granted
the bail and not by the same court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
7 MCRC-34352-2024
17. In Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 797 the Apex
Court had occasion to reiterate the position as regards the
distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and
cancellation of bail and also the distinction between the concept of
setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and
cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances
warrant such cancellation. It was held as follows in paragraph No.
19 of the judgment.
19. It needs no special emphasis to state that there is
distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and
cancellation of bail. There is also a distinction between
the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or
perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on
the ground that the accused has misconducted himself
or certain supervening circumstances warrant such
cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse one
or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by
the superior court. We have already referred to various
paragraphs of the order passed by the High Court. We
have already held that the learned trial Judge has
misconstrued the order passed by the High Court.
However, we may hasten to add that the learned Single
Judge has taken note of certain supervening
circumstances to cancel the bail, but we are of the
opinion that in the obtaining factual matrix the said
exercise was not necessary as the grant of bail was
absolutely illegal and unjustified as the court below had
enlarged the accused on bail on the strength of the order
passed in Ranjeet Singh v. State of M.P.[Ranjeet Singh
v. State of M.P., MCRC No. 701 of 2013, order dated
1-2-2013 (MP)] remaining oblivious of the parameters
for grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC. It is well
settled in law that grant of bail though involves exercise
of discretionary power of the court, yet the said exercise
has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course.
18. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as above,
the courts are to bear in mind that there is a distinction between
the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal, or perverse
order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
8 MCRC-34352-2024
accused has misconducted himself or due to the happening of
certain supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation.
Insofar as the cancellation of bail by the superior court on the
ground that the order passed by the court granting bail is
unjustified, illegal, or perverse, the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349
shall govern the same. It was observed therein that 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 a 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 canceled 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.
Insofar as the cases in which the application for cancellation of
bail is filed for misusing liberty, the fact to be taken note of by the
court is whether the conditions have been violated and that the
supervening circumstances warrant the cancellation of bail (See
CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, [(2011) 5 SCC 296]).
19. In P. v. Madhyapradesh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has
adverted to all the past precedents and has encapsulated the
circumstances under which bail granted to the accused under S.
439 (1) of the Cr. P. C. can be revoked. They are
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of the investigation;
c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper
smooth investigation;
g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground and/or becoming unavailable to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
9 MCRC-34352-2024
investigating agency;
i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of
his surety.
j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which
are considered unconducive to a fair trial”
16. In the light of above legal position as submitted by both the
parties, it is clear that the allegation in the case, in which applicant was
granted bail i.e. in Crime No.715/2023 were that on 16.10.2019 at 01:00 AM,
the complainant Pawan Ochani was returning after attending Bhajan
Programme and going to his house and when he reached near the house, a
lady and Saddam Khan were standing there and when he asked them ‘what
happened’, then Sonu Yadav, Sonu Sahu, Prateek Singh and Arjoo Khan
came there and Sonu Yadav started uttering filthy abuses and when the
complaint took the objection, all the accused persons stated assaulted him by
hands, fists and knife. Prateek Singh used the knife on that, he suffered
injuries. Complainant’s brothers Gaurav and Pankaj seeing the incident came
and rescued. In that case, the victim suffered the injuries.
17. As discussed above, in the Crime No.65/2024, on 31.01.2024 at
10:00 PM, the respondent along with his friends demanded Rs.500/- for
consuming the alcohol, when Rakesh Barman has not paid the money,
accused persons uttered filthy abuses and assaulted him. In the same
circumstances, in Crime No.784/2023. the offence was committed on
22.11.2023. In above two cases also the charge sheets have been submitted
and trial is pending. Though, the respondent has been acquitted in the Crime
No.36/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26858
10 MCRC-34352-2024
18. Thus, it is clear that the respondent was released on bail on the
condition that he will not repeat the offence of the same nature, in which he
has given bail but repeatedly he committed the offence and in these
circumstances, it is clear that the respondent is misusing the liberty granted to
him, hence, bail granted to the respondent in Crime No.715/2019 vide order
dated 02.11.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.45147/2022 is quashed being
violating the conditions of bail .
19. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is hereby allowed and disposed of.
20. The respondent shall surrender before the trial Court within 30
days, if not, then the trial Court shall be free to take appropriate legal action
for arresting the respondent and sending him into judicial custody till
disposal of the case.
21. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial Court.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 08-04-2026
10:46:00
