The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to an accused, ruling that the mere registration of a subsequent FIR or the filing of a final report is not sufficient ground to revoke bail. Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar held that unless there are “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” indicating interference with the administration of justice, bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically.
The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner sought the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent, Meharban Singh, arguing that he had violated bail conditions by committing another offence. The High Court rejected the plea, observing that the veracity of the subsequent prosecution would be determined during the trial and no supervening circumstance warranted the withdrawal of liberty.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Meharban Singh, had been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on March 16, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 414/2022 registered at Police Station Susner, District Agar Malwa. This case involved offences punishable under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 325, 294, 506, 34, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, approached the High Court alleging that after being released on bail, Meharban Singh committed another offence. A new FIR (Crime No. 205/2025) was registered against Meharban Singh and one Sujjan Sondiya for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNSS, 2023, and provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the anticipatory bail order dated March 16, 2023, was subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the CrPC. It was argued that by committing a subsequent crime, the respondent had violated these conditions, necessitating the cancellation of his bail.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent, Meharban Singh, argued that the petition was meritless. It was submitted that the petitioner, Rohit Kumar, had already been examined as PW1 on July 22, 2023, and had not alleged any threatening in his evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Bhuri Bai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the defence argued that “mere registration of subsequent FIR or filing of final report is not sufficient to cancel the bail already granted, unless cogent grounds are made out and there is apparent possibility of interference in the trial.”
The State counsel informed the Court that the trial in the earlier matter was underway and a final report had been submitted in the subsequent prosecution (Crime No. 205/2025).
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Kalgaonkar examined the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995). The Court reiterated that rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted must be dealt with on different bases.
The Court observed:
“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… 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 Bench also referred to CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan (2011) and Bhuri Bai (2022), emphasizing that the power of cancellation “cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused.”
Regarding the facts at hand, the Court noted that the petitioner was unable to explain which witness was tampered with due to the alleged conduct of the respondent in the subsequent case. The Court stated:
“There is no material suggesting deliberate violation of condition of bail or other supervening circumstance relating to alleged offence warranting cancellation of bail. The veracity of prosecution in the subsequent offence will be determined after evidence in the trial.”
Decision
Finding that no case was made out for the cancellation of anticipatory bail, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court relied on the precedent set in Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P. (2024) to support its conclusion that no supervening circumstances existed to render the accused’s freedom conducive to an unfair trial.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rohit Kumar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 48726 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
