Smt. Arti Sahu W/O Anuj Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32203
1 MCRC-37699-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37699 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030208702026
SMT. ARTI SAHU W/O ANUJ KUMAR SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Dy. GA for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Bal Krishna Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.
ORDER
1. The present application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the applicant/complainant
seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent Nos. 3 to 5/accused vide
order dated 02.09.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41329/2022 and to respondent No.
2/accused vide order dated 18.10.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 47031/2022, arising
out of Crime No. 228/2022 registered at Police Station Kurwai, District Vidisha.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Crime No. 228/2022 was
registered at Police Station Kurwai, District Vidisha, against respondent Nos. 2 to
5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated
02.09.2022, whereas respondent No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail vide order
dated 18.10.2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32203
2 MCRC-37699-2026
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that respondent Nos. 3 to 5,

namely, the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant,
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C. No. 41329/2022.
During the hearing on 02.09.2022, the said respondents gave an undertaking
before this Court that they would take steps to rectify the alleged wrong and
transfer or re-register the ownership of the flat situated in Bengaluru in favour of
the complainant/applicant. Relying upon the aforesaid undertaking, this Court
granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 vide order dated 02.09.2022,
imposing, inter alia, the following condition:
“As per undertaking given by the applicants they may take
appropriate decision regarding ownership of the flat at Bangalore.”
4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 (husband of the complainant) preferred
M.Cr.C. No. 47031/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which was allowed by this
Court vide order dated 18.10.2022, subject to the conditions imposed therein,
including those relating to non-harassment and cooperation. However, the
respondents have failed to transfer the aforesaid flat in the name of the
complainant. It is further contended that where bail or anticipatory bail is obtained
on the basis of an undertaking or representation made before the Court, and such
undertaking is subsequently breached, the liberty granted to the accused is liable
to be withdrawn in accordance with law. It is alleged that the respondents are
continuously misusing the liberty granted to them by this Court, wilfully
disregarding their undertakings and threatening the complainant to enter into a
compromise. Learned counsel further submits that sufficient material was
available on record against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and, therefore, the grant of bail
was unjustified. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32203
3 MCRC-37699-2026
application be allowed and the orders granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 be

recalled and their bail be cancelled.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 vehemently
opposed the application and prayed for its dismissal. It is submitted that the
complainant has already received the entire amount payable to her and, therefore,
she is not entitled to claim ownership of the flat. Consequently, according to the
respondents, the condition concerning the transfer of the flat no longer survives. It
is further submitted that no material facts were concealed from this Court and that
bail was granted only after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is contended that no ground is made out for cancellation of the bail already
granted and that allowing the present application would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. Accordingly, dismissal of the application is prayed for.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds no sufficient
ground to allow the present application. The bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 5
cannot be cancelled merely because the applicant disputes the justification for
granting such relief. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in the case of Dolat Ram &
Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, 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. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32203
4 MCRC-37699-2026
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."

8. It is well settled that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or
grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted and unless a strong case
based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be
lightly interfered with under Section 439 (2) CrPC.
9. In the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 956, the Apex Court has held as under:

"19. It remains trite that normally, very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted.
Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made
out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under
Section 439 (2) CrPC."
20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had
misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation
of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that
power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and
circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any
perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In
other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as
if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case
where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439 (2)
CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is
going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the
criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-
expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a
particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order
granting bail."

10. In the present case, learned counsel for the applicant has failed to
establish the existence of any cogent, compelling or overwhelming circumstances
warranting cancellation of the bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The mere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32203
5 MCRC-37699-2026
allegation that the respondents have failed to transfer the flat in favour of the

complainant, by itself, does not warrant cancellation of bail unless the
circumstances demonstrate a legally sustainable ground for such cancellation.
Further, no sufficient material has been placed on record to establish that
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have misused the liberty granted to them or that their
conduct has adversely affected the fairness of the trial. In view of the settled legal
position and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no justifiable
ground to recall or set aside the orders granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
11. Consequently, the present application seeking cancellation of the bail
granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 10/23/2026
11:40:24 AM