Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pintu @ Banwari Lal Gupta on 12 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
1 MCRC-14697-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14697 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PINTU @ BANWARI LAL GUPTA
Appearance:
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - Amicus Curiae for the respondent/accused.
ORDER
The present application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the State seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused-respondent Pintu
@ Banwari Lal Gupta vide order dated 20.06.2022 passed in CRA
No.7935/2021 in connection with crime No.140/2021 registered at Police
Station – Rajendragram, District – Anuppur (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(da)(dha) and
3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State that the
respondent/accused was granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order
dated 20.06.2022 passed in CRA No.7935/2021 and he was directed that the
respondent/accused shall also comply with the provisions of Section 437(3)
of Cr.P.C. It has now been brought to the notice of this Court that after
release on bail, respondent/accused is engaged in the criminal activity.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
2 MCRC-14697-2024
Istagasa No.30/2023 under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and Crime No.126/2023 for
the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC at P.S. Rajendragram,
District – Anuppur (M.P.) have been registered against respondent/accused.
Therefore, prays is made to cancel the bail application of
respondent/accused.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent/accused has submitted
that respondent/accused has not committed similar offence and he has not
breached the condition enumerated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. The
complainant in Crime No.126/2023 is different from the complainant in the
case wherein bail has been granted to the respondent/accused. There is no
report that he is hampering the progress and trial of the case in which he was
granted bail. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the application filed u/s
439 (2) of Cr.P.C.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After perusal of record, I am not convinced with the grounds raised
in this application and in fact, the bail granted to the respondent in M.Cr.C.
No.31685 of 2022 cannot be cancelled only because vide Crime No.99/2023,
an offence has been registered against him subsequently. The Supreme Court
in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, considering the aspect as to under
what circumstances, the bail granted in a non-bailable offence, can be
cancelled by the Court has observed as under:-
“4. 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 circumstances are necessary
for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. GenerallySignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:127373 MCRC-14697-2024
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 cancelled 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court
when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it
appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting
bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.”
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that mere
registration of offence against the respondent to whom bail was granted by
the Court, cannot be made the sole ground for cancellation of bail.
6. Similarly, in a case of Rajiya Vs. State of Haryana in CRM-M-
35903-2023 decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh, the said Court considering various judgments of Supreme Court
and also of different High Courts has observed as to what should be the
yardstick and criteria for cancellation of bail. It is observed by the Court that
merely because after granting bail, a crime has been registered against a
person to whom bail was granted and if there was no any such condition
imposed while granting him bail, then that cannot be the sole ground for
cancelling the bail. Relying upon several judgments of Supreme Court as
well as High Courts, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,
has observed as under:-
“11. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to examine to the
various judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner and the
relevant extracts of the same are as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
4 MCRC-14697-2024
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhendu Mishra Versus Subrat
Kumar Mishra and another, 1999 AIR (Supreme Court) 3026, held as
under:-
3. We have perused the order of the High Court and heard learned
counsel for the parties.
4. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 while drawing
a distinction between rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, it was opined
by this Court :
“. . . . . . . . . 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 cancelled 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.
These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when
it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it
appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for
rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the
cancellation of bail already granted.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Kerala High Court in the case of Godson Versus State of Kerala,
2022(3) Crimes 191, held as under:-
2. The petitioners were arrested in connection with the said case and later, as
per order dated 9.2.2018 in Crl.M.C.No.197/2018, the 2nd Additional
Sessions Court, Ernakulam, granted bail to them subject to certain
conditions. One of the conditions was that they should not involve in any
other crime of similar nature during the bail period. Subsequently, the
investigation in the said case is completed, and the final report has been
submitted.
3. Later, Crl.M.P.Nos.249/82022 and 247/2022 were submitted by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:127375 MCRC-14697-2024
Public Prosecutor for cancellation of their bail. The sole reason highlighted
in the said petition is that both the petitioners are subsequently involved in
Crime No.1159/2021 of Kuruppampady Police Station, which was
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
143,147,308,324,506(ii)and 294(b) r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The learned
Sessions Judge, as per orders dated 24.2.2022 allowed the said applications
after hearing the petitioners and thereby, the bail granted to them was
cancelled. These orders are now under challenge in this Crl.M.Cs.
*** *** ****
7. The conditions to be imposed while granting bail, are contemplated
under Sections 437(3) r/w. Section 439(1)(a) of Cr.PC. The condition
not to involve in similar offences during the bail period is something
which is specifically stipulated in the aforesaid provision. Since such a
condition is specifically mentioned in the statute, that would indicate
the importance of such condition and the necessity to insist on the
compliance of the same. However, the question that arises here is
whether a violation of the said condition should result in the
cancellation of the bail in all the cases. In my view, merely because of
the reason that such a condition was imposed while granting bail to the
accused, that would not result in the cancellation of bail automatically.
This is particularly because, since the order of cancellation of bail is
something that affects the personal liberty of a person, which is
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless there
are reasons justifying or warranting such an order, the bail already
granted cannot be cancelled. In Dolat Ram and Others v. State of
Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
“5. 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 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 cancelled 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High CourtSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:127376 MCRC-14697-2024
when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it
appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting
bail in a non -bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of
bail already granted.”
The aforesaid view was reiterated in X v. State of Telangana
and Another reported in [(2018) 16 SCC 511].
8. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018)3 SCC 22],
it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the manner as
follows:
“It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardsticks for
cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, 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 concessions granted to the accused in any
manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the
Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In
other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled 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.”
Therefore, while considering an application to cancel the bail on the ground of
non compliance of the conditions, the court has to consider the question whether
the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of
justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is
implicated. In XI, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v. State of Kerala
and Others [2019 (3) KHC 26], this Court laid down the principles with regard to
the nature of the enquiry to be conducted by the court concerned, while
considering an application for cancellation of bail. In paragraph 9 of the said
judgment, it was observed as follows:
“9. But in a case where the victim or the witnesses specifically
complains of threat and intimidation and the said aspects are projected
either by victim or by the prosecution before the Bail Court through an
application as referred to in Ext.P- 5, then it is bounden duty of the Bail
Court to consider the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in a
summary manner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
prosecution as well as to the affected accused concerned whose bail is
ought to be cancelled and if possible to the victim as well, in a case like
this. In such process of enquiry, the Bail Court could call for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
7 MCRC-14697-2024
records if any in relation to those allegations and if a separate crime has
been registered in that regard, the records in those crimes should also be
perused by the Bail Court in order to make an enquiry in a summary
manner as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations therein, and after
affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the prosecution,
accused and the victim, the Bail Court is expected to discharge its
solemn duty and function to decide on the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations in such a summary manner and the evidentiary
assessment thereof could be on the basis of the overall attendant
circumstances as well as the attendant balance of probabilities of the
case. Based on such a process, the Bail Court is obliged to take a
decision whether the bail conditions have been so violated and if it is so
found that the bail conditions has been violated then it is the duty of the
Bail Court to cancel the bail, but certainly after hearing the affected
party as aforestated. So also, if the said enquiry process reveals that the
truth of the above said allegations has not been established in a
convincing manner in such enquiry process, then the Bail Court is to
dismiss the application to cancel the bail. But the Bail Court cannot
evade from the responsibility by taking up the specious plea that since
the very same allegations also form subject matter of a distinct crime
then the truth or otherwise of the allegations is to be decided by the
Criminal Court which is seisin of that crime through the process of
finalisation of said impugned criminal proceedings by the conduct and
completion of trial therein.”
Thus, from all the above decisions, it is evident that, mere violation of the
condition alone is not sufficient to cancel the bail granted by the court.
Before taking a decision, the court has to conduct a summary inquiry based
on the records, including the documents relating to the subsequent crime and
arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is necessary to cancel the bail or not.
Therefore, the orders impugned in these cases are to be considered by
applying the yardstick as mentioned above.
9. When coming back to the facts of this case, it can be seen that the petitioners
are seen implicated in the offences under Sections 341, 308, 324 r/w. Section 34
of the IPC, in a crime registered in the year 2018. They were granted bail on
9.2.2018, subject to the above conditions. Now the present application is
submitted in the year 2022 on the allegation that the petitioners are involved in a
crime committed in the year 2021. The fact remains that in both cases, final
reports were already submitted by the Police. In the subsequent crime also, the
petitioners were granted bail even after taking into consideration the criminal
antecedents of the petitioners. Therefore, custody of the petitioners is not required
to conduct the trial of the said cases. The allegations in the subsequent crime are
not relating to an act which was allegedly committed by the petitioners with the
intention to intimidate or influence any witnesses in the crime registered in the
year, 2018. Both crimes are entirely different and have no connection with each
other.
10. In my view, even though the court which granted the bail is empowered
to direct the arrest of the petitioners who were already released on bail by
virtue of the powers conferred upon the court as per Section 437(5) and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
8 MCRC-14697-2024
439(2) of Cr.PC, such power has to be exercised only if it is absolutely
necessary. Of course, if the subsequent crime is allegedly committed with the
intention to influence or intimidate the witnesses, the consideration should
have been different, but it is not the case here. In Dataram Singh‘s case, it
was categorically observed that, bail once granted, cannot be cancelled
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.
11. While considering the alleged involvement of the petitioners in the
subsequent crime for cancellation of bail, the fact that the second crime is
after three years of the earlier crime is also a relevant aspect. The petitioners
are indeed involved in some other cases, and one of the petitioners is already
undergone preventive detention under KAA(P)A. However, that alone cannot
be a reason to cancel the bail, unless it is shown that the involvement of the
petitioners in the subsequent crime is affecting the trial of the earlier case. If
the prosecuting agency is concerned with the commission of repeated
offences by the accused persons, there are ample statutory provisions
available for them to initiate appropriate proceedings for subjecting the
accused persons to preventive detention. The stipulations contained in
Section 437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.PC cannot be treated as a substitute for
preventive detention laws. The legislature has brought into force, various
enactments to enable the authorities concerned to keep the persons involved
in repeated crimes under preventive detention, despite the stipulations in
437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The said fact fortifies the view which I have
taken as above. Moreover, there are no provisions in Cr.PC which
specifically deal with the cancellation of bail and instead, the power is given
to the court as per sections 437(5) and 439(2) to direct the person already
released on bail, to be arrested and committed to prison, if it considers
necessary to do so. When the court orders the arrest of a person already
released on bail, it would have the effect of cancellation of the bail.
Therefore what is relevant is not a mere violation of the bail condition but the
satisfaction of the court that ‘it is necessary to do so’. While considering the
aforesaid question, the matters such as; the time gap between the crimes, the
possibility of false accusation in the subsequent case, bail granted to the
accused in the subsequent crime, stage of the prosecution of the case in
which cancellation of bail is sought, chances of affecting or causing
interference in the fair trial of the case, etc. could be relevant. In some cases,
the commission of heinous crimes repeatedly, in such a manner as to infuse
fear in the mind of the witnesses, which may deter them from deposing
against the accused, may also be relevant, as it is something which affects the
conduct of the fair trial. However, no hard and fast rules can be laid down in
respect of the same, and it differs from case to case. As held in the case of
XI, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court (supra), the court has to
conduct a summary enquiry after perusing the records and arrive at a
satisfaction as to whether it is necessary to cancel the bail of the accused.
12. While applying the above principles to the facts of this case, one of the
crucial aspects relevant for consideration is whether the subsequent crime
interferes with the conduct of a fair trial of the case in which he is involved.
Such a situation is not there in this case. Further, the mere allegation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
9 MCRC-14697-2024
involvement of the petitioners in the subsequent crime after three years of
the crime in which the bail was granted, cannot by itself be a reason for the
cancellation of bail. Even in the subsequent cases, the petitioners were
granted bail and the investigation in that case was also completed. Therefore,
the custody of the petitioners is not at all necessary, and hence I do not find
any justifiable reason to sustain the order of cancellation of bail.
In the result, both these Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The orders passed by the IInd
Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam on 24.02.2022 in
Crl.M.P.No.247/2022 and Crl.M.P.No.249/2022 in Crl.M.C.No.197/2018 are
hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that, this shall not preclude the
authorities concerned in initiating any proceedings for preventive detention
of the petitioners if there are materials warranting the same.
(emphasis supplied)
In Abdul Lathif @ Shokkari Lathif Versus State of Kerala, CRL. MC
No.6677 of 2022, decided on 10.02.2023, held as under:-
Mr. V.G.Arun, J. – The petitioner is the accused in S.C. No. 10 of 2022 on
the files of the Sessions Court, Kasargod which arose out of Crime No. 17
of 2021 registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special
Squad for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(a) and 22(b) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘ for
short). In that crime, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Sessions
Court on 31.12.2021 subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions
was that the petitioner should not commit any offence while on bail. The
petitioner was later arrested on 11.03.2022 in connection with Crime No. 5
of 2022 registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special
Squad, Kasargod, this time for the offences under Sections 22(b), 27(a) and
29 of the NDPS Act. Consequently the petitioner was remanded to judicial
custody again. On
registration of the second crime, the Public Prosecutor moved an application
under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail in the first case for
violation of the condition which required him not to commit any offence
while on bail. Based on the petition, the Sessions Court cancelled
petitioner’s bail as per Annexure A1 order. Hence, this Crl.M.C.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged
involvement in a subsequent crime cannot lead to automatic
cancellation of the bail granted in the earlier crime, even if there is a
condition that the accused should not commit any crime while on bail.
It is submitted that the investigation in the first crime (Crime
No.17/2021) was completed and the matter was pending before the
Sessions Court as S.C. No. 10 of 2022. When the application for
cancellation of bail was moved, the learned Sessions Judge, without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
10 MCRC-14697-2024
considering the above fact or the allegations based on which the
petitioner is implicated in the
subsequent crime, mechanically cancelled the bail. Reliance is placed
on the decision on Godson & Anr. v. State of Kerala (2022 (2) KLD
447) to contend that, order of cancellation of bail being an action
affecting the personal liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, bail cannot be cancelled in the absence of
reasons justifying such an order. It was also held that involvement of
the accused in a subsequent crime alone cannot be a reason to cancel
the bail, unless it is shown that the involvement of the accused in the
subsequent crime is affecting the trial of the earlier case. Reference is
also made to the decision in XI,Victim of POCSO Court v. State of
Kerala & Ors. (2019 (3) KHC 26), SC No.118 of 2018 wherein it is
held that while considering the prayer for cancellation of bail, the bail
court cannot evade from the responsibility of making a summary
enquiry, as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations, based on the
specious plea that those allegations form subject matter of distinct
crime. The general principles to be followed while cancelling the bail is
submitted with the aid of X v. State of Telangana and Anr. [(2018) 16
SCC 511] and P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2022 SCC Online
SC 552).
3. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, when an accused is
granted liberty subject to certain conditions, he is bound to strictly
abide by the conditions. If he misuses that liberty and commits another
crime, that, by itself, is sufficient reason to cancel the bail. This aspect
is laid down by the Supreme Court in P (supra) and has been followed
by this Court in Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala (2022 (6) KLT
OnLine 1129).
4. There being no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was arrayed as
an accused in a crime, subsequent to his release on bail in the first
crime, the only question to be considered is whether involvement in the
subsequent crime can result in automatic cancellation of the petitioner’s
bail. In X (supra) the bail granted by the High Court to the accused in a
crime alleging commission of the offence under Section 376, was
cancelled by the Sessions Court for failure of the accused to disclose
the pendency of prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case.
Setting aside the order of cancellation, the Apex Court held that the
second FIR is not a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would
warrant cancellation of the bail. For holding so, the Apex Court found
that no cogent material to indicate that the accused has been guilty of
conduct which would warrant his being deprived of his liberty was
made out. This Court in Godson (supra) also held that involvement in a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
11 MCRC-14697-2024
second crime alone cannot be a reason to cancel the bail, unless it is
shown that such involvement is affecting the trial of the earlier case.
Recently, in P (supra), the Supreme Court enumerated some of the
circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1)
of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled. One such circumstance is misuse of
liberty by the accused, by indulging in similar/other criminal activity. It
is pertinent to note the following observations of the Apex Court in the
same decision.
“25. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once
granted, the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have
arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no
longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during trial. To put it differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the
Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to
scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court. Some of the circumstances
where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. can be
cancelled are enumerated below:-
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of 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 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 un-
conducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in naturer and not
exhaustive.”
Following the decision in P (supra), this Court in Sreeja Mannangath (supra) and
Jeby James v. State of Kerala (2023 KLT OnLine 1088) held involvement in
subsequent crime to be a valid ground for cancellation of bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
12 MCRC-14697-2024
5. No doubt, involvement of an accused on bail in another crime is a
supervening circumstance that would justify cancellation of bail. To reiterate,
the question here is whether such cancellation is automatic or can be done in
a mechanical manner. In my opinion, the answer to that question can only be
in the negative. While deciding bail applications, the court has to always
keep in mind the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail, the
exception. Yet another pertinent aspect is that by cancelling the bail, a person
is being deprived of the liberty granted to him after considering all relevant
aspects. Therefore, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for cancellation of bail once granted and there cannot be a
mechanical cancellation of the bail. In this context, I find the following
observations in XI, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court (supra) to
be very pertinent.
“9. But in a case where the victim or the witnesses specifically
complains of threat and intimidation and the said aspects are projected
either by victim or by the prosecution before the bail court through an
application as referred to in Ext.P-5, then it is bounden duty of the bail
court to consider the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in a
summary manner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
prosecution as well as to the affected accused concerned whose bail is
ought to be cancelled and if possible to the victim as well, in a case like
this. In such process of enquiry, the bail court could call for the records
if any in relation to those allegations and if a separate crime has been
registered in that regard, the records in those crimes should also be
perused by the bail court in order to make an enquiry in a summary
manner as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations therein, and after
affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the prosecution,
accused and the victim, the bail court is expected to discharge its
solemn duty and function to decide on the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations in such a summary manner and the evidentiary
assessment thereof could be on the basis of the overall attendant
circumstances as well as the attendant balance of probabilities of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1273713 MCRC-14697-2024
case. Based on such a process, the bail court is obliged to take a
decision whether the bail conditions have been so violated and if it is so
found that the bail conditions has been violated then it is the duty of the
bail court to cancel the bail, but certainly after hearing the affected
party as aforestated. So also, if the said enquiry process reveals that the
truth of the above said allegations has not been established in a
convincing manner in such enquiry process, then the bail court is to
dismiss the application to cancel the bail. But the bail court cannot
evade from the responsibility by taking up the specious plea that since
the very same allegations also form subject matter of a distinct crime
then the truth or otherwise of the allegations is to be decided by the
criminal court which is seisin of that crime through the process of
finalisation of said impugned criminal proceedings by the conduct and
completion of trial therein.”
Therefore, even in a case where the accused has committed a crime while on bail,
the court has to consider whether crime is of such grave nature that it amounts to
a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail. For that, there has to
be a preliminary assessment of the allegations with respect to the subsequent
crime.
6. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge did not enter into any such
exercise and proceeded to cancel the bail mechanically, as revealed from
paragraph 7 of Annexure A1 order extracted hereunder;
“The accused is involved in another crime after he is released on bail
in this case, it is clear violation of the order passed by the court in
CMP No. 3282/2021. So the petitioner is not entitled to enjoy the
freedom. Hence the bail granted to the accused as per order in CMP
3282/2021 in S.C No.10/2022 is hereby cancelled.”
For the reasons aforementioned, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, the impugned order set
aside and the Sessions court directed to reconsider C.M.P. No.2072 of 2022 in
S.C. No. 10 of 2022 and pass a fresh reasoned order, taking into account the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
14 MCRC-14697-2024
observations herein. The impugned order having been set aside, the petitioner has
to be enlarged on bail. However, in view of petitioner’s involvement in the second
crime, the bail bond is being increased and the following order issued; The
petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The above direction is in addition to the
conditions imposed in the original order granting bail.
(emphasis supplied)
In Renjith Versus State of Kerala, 2023(1) ILR (Kerala) 1060 , held as
under:-
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. – Should the bail granted in one crime be
cancelled merely because the accused had, in alleged violation of the
conditions of bail, got himself entangled in a subsequent crime? The above
question arises for resolution in the instant case.
2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No.1104 of 2022 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Chavakkad, which arises from
Crime No.31 of 2022 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur (hereafter
referred to as the ‘first crime’). The prosecution alleges that on
12.01.2022, petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant in front of
a temple at Guruvayoor and caused grievous hurt and also stole her
mobile phone and thus committed the offences punishable under
sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 394 and 201 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. After petitioner was taken into custody on 23.05.2022, he was
granted bail on 02.06.2022. One of the conditions imposed by the
learned Magistrate, while granting bail was that petitioner should not
involve in any other crime while on bail. Later, petitioner was arrayed
as an accused in Crime No.1072/2022 of Thrissur Town West Police
Station (hereafter referred to as the ‘second crime’) alleging offences
punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 308, 354 and 354A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The allegations in the second crime include
displaying his nudity before a lady and brandishing a chopper in an
attempt to commit culpable homicide and shouting obscene words on aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
15 MCRC-14697-2024
public road. Petitioner has been granted bail in the second crime also.
4. In the meantime, a petition was filed through the Prosecutor to cancel
the bail granted in the first crime due to his involvement in the second
crime in violation of the conditions of bail. By the impugned order, the
learned Magistrate cancelled the bail due to his involvement in the
subsequent crime.
*** *** ***
11. The mere registration of a subsequent crime against the accused by
itself cannot result in an automatic cancellation of bail. Registration of
a subsequent crime is only an indication of an allegation or a complaint
of the accused having been involved in a subsequent crime. The
presumption of innocence available to the accused in the second crime,
the right to liberty as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which envelopes every provision of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are factors which cannot be forgotten by the Court
when called upon to cancel the bail. The possibility of false accusations
being alleged with oblique motives also cannot be ignored. The nature
of the subsequent offence and the persons against whom the offence is
alleged to have been committed, the stage of the case wherein
cancellation is sought are also factors that require appreciation. Apart
from the above, while arriving at the conclusion to cancel the bail, the
Court must also consider whether the accused had misused the liberty
granted in such a manner that it has a tendency to interfere with the due
course of the administration of justice. Thus, every case presents a
unique situation and close scrutiny ought to be indulged in to identify
whether overwhelming circumstances are indeed present in the
subsequent crime which necessitates the cancellation of bail earlier
granted.
12. As held in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1
SCC 349] very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary
to cancel the bail already granted and that bail once granted should not
be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether the
supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
16 MCRC-14697-2024
fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial.
13. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to two recent decisions of
this Court. In Godson v. State of Kerala [2022 (2) KLD 447] a learned
Single Judge of this Court had observed that a mere violation of the bail
conditions is not sufficient to cancel the bail but the satisfaction of the
court that it is necessary to do so based on various factors have to be
arrived at. However, another learned Single Judge in Sreeja
Mannangath v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KLD 109], relying upon the
decision in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), cancelled the bail
after observing that the accused had misused his liberty by violating one
of the conditions of bail. In Sreeja’s case (supra), the accused is alleged
to have involved in a subsequent crime against the defacto complainant
in the earlier crime itself, in violation of the specific condition not to do
so. The conclusion arrived at in Sreeja’s case (supra) is based on the
facts therein and cannot apply to the present situation. Further, the
decision in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) does not imply that
on violation of any of the conditions of bail, there should be an
automatic cancellation. The said decision has not diluted the principles
laid down in Dolat Ram‘s case (supra) and on the other hand,
specifically observes that there must be a significant scrutiny before bail
is cancelled.
14. With the above principles in mind, when the circumstances of the
present case are appreciated, it can be noticed that the learned
Magistrate had, in exercise of the discretion to grant bail, released the
petitioner on bail even in the second crime. Still, the petitioner has
remained in jail for the last more than two months. Though the
allegation as regards the second crime is serious, taking into reckoning
the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the
absence of any injury on any person and the general allegation that the
accused attempted to commit culpable homicide by brandishing a sword
in a public road, this Court is of the view that the second crime cannot
be treated as overwhelming enough to impede fair trial in the first crime
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12737
17 MCRC-14697-2024
for cancelling the bail already granted. Further, the final report in the
crime in which bail was sought to be cancelled was filed much earlier
and there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused his liberty
against the defacto complainant therein.
(emphasis supplied)”
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that cancellation of bail and the
power of cancelling bail cannot be exercised by the Court in a mechanical
manner and this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for
cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused vide order dated
20.06.2022 passed in CRA No.7935/2021. [Also relied on- Himanshu Sharma
v. State of M.P., (2024) 4 SCC 222.].
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGEshahina
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN
Signing time: 2/16/2026
11:12:25 AM