Varnit Shivhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
1 MCRC-20681-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20681 of 2026
VARNIT SHIVHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya with Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah - Advocate for
the petitioner/complainant.
Shri Harish Sharma - PP for the State.
Shri Ankur Maheswari - Advocate for the respondent No.2/accused.
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483(3) of
the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant seeking
cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.04.2026
passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Bail Application No.241/2026.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the as per the prosecution case, on
20.04.2026, the informant Varnit Shivhare reported that his brother, namely,
Utkarsh Shivhare, had committed suicide by consuming sulphas tablets. On
the basis of the said information, Case No.11/2026 under Section 194 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was registered and investigation
was taken up. During the course of inquiry/investigation, statements of
Varnit Shivhare, brother of the deceased, Ritesh Shivhare, uncle of the
deceased, and Kapil Shivhare were recorded. In their statements, allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
2 MCRC-20681-2026
were levelled against the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Jitendra, his

wife Riya, sister-in-law and brother-in-law Dhruv, alleging that the deceased
was subjected to continuous mental harassment and pressure. It was further
alleged that money was repeatedly demanded from the deceased on the
pretext of arranging treatment for his wife Riya. It is further the prosecution
case that the deceased, being distressed on account of the alleged continuous
harassment, pressure and demands, committed suicide by consuming
poisonous substance. During the course of investigation, material allegedly
indicating harassment and instigation on the part of the accused persons
came on record. Accordingly, offence was registered.
3. Respondent No.2, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, was
arrested on 25.04.2026. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased had
also left behind a suicide video in which specific allegations of harassment
and instigation were allegedly made against respondent No.2 and other co-
accused persons. Respondent No.2 thereafter preferred Bail Application
No.241/2026 before the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The Sessions Judge, vide
order dated 29.04.2026, allowed the said application and enlarged respondent
No.2 on bail. The petitioner/complainant has questioned the correctness of
the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that the Sessions Court, while
granting bail at the initial stage of investigation, relied upon the defence
version put forward by respondent No.2, including a representation allegedly
made by the daughter of respondent No.2 before Gautam Nagar Police
Station, Bhopal, on 19.04.2026, alleging harassment by her in-
laws. According to the petitioner, the investigation was still at its initial stage
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
3 MCRC-20681-2026
when bail was granted; respondent No.2 had been arrested only a few days

earlier and one of the co-accused persons was still absconding. It is,
therefore, contended that the Sessions Court ought to have taken into
consideration the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged suicide video and
the stage of investigation before exercising discretion in favour of
respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order
granting bail to respondent No.2 suffers from non-application of mind to the
material available on record. It is submitted that the deceased committed
suicide on 19.04.2026 at about 6:15 P.M. by consuming a poisonous
substance and that the prosecution case specifically attributes harassment,
pressure and instigation to respondent No.2 and the other co-accused
persons. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2, being the father-in-
law of the deceased, along with the other co-accused persons, was allegedly
pressurising and harassing the deceased and repeatedly demanding money
from him. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 was also unhappy
with the marriage of the deceased and his daughter and, therefore, had a
motive to subject the deceased to harassment and pressure. It is further
submitted that the deceased had left behind a suicide video containing
specific allegations against respondent No.2 regarding harassment and
instigation. According to learned counsel, such material constitutes an
important circumstance which was required to be considered while
examining the prayer for bail. It is argued that a prima facie case for the
offence punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
4 MCRC-20681-2026
is made out against respondent No.2 and that the Sessions Court failed to

properly appreciate the said material.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Sessions Court
placed undue reliance upon a representation allegedly submitted by the
daughter of respondent No.2 before Gautam Nagar Police Station, Bhopal, on
19.04.2026, alleging harassment by her in-laws. According to the petitioner,
the said representation constitutes part of the defence version and its
genuineness, relevance and evidentiary value were matters requiring
investigation. At the initial stage of the criminal proceedings, such defence
material ought not to have been given decisive weight while considering the
prayer for bail. It is further argued that the Sessions Court proceeded on the
premise that the question as to whether respondent No.2 was harassing the
deceased or whether the daughter of respondent No.2 was being harassed by
the deceased was a matter of investigation. According to the petitioner, when
the investigation itself was at a nascent stage, the defence version could not
have been accepted or relied upon so as to dilute the prima facie material
collected against respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the
bail application was allowed substantially on the basis of the plea of
counterblast raised by respondent No.2. It is contended that the defence of an
accused cannot ordinarily be adjudicated upon as if it were a trial at the stage
of consideration of bail, particularly when the prosecution relies upon
specific material indicating harassment and instigation. The learned Sessions
Court, according to the petitioner, failed to keep in view the settled
principles governing exercise of discretion in serious offences. Learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
5 MCRC-20681-2026
counsel further submits that the investigation was at its initial stage.

Respondent No.2 was arrested on 25.04.2026, whereas the FIR was
registered on 23.04.2026, and one of the co-accused persons was still
absconding. It is, therefore, argued that the possibility of respondent No.2
influencing witnesses, obstructing the investigation or otherwise interfering
with the course of investigation could not have been overlooked. It is also
submitted that respondent No.2 is an influential person and his release on
bail, particularly at such an early stage, creates a reasonable apprehension of
intimidation of material witnesses and interference with the collection of
evidence. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the discretion exercised by
the learned Sessions Court was not properly exercised in accordance with the
seriousness of the allegations and the material available on record. In support
of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar Mangla
v. Anita Agarwal, reported in 2021 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) (SC) 353; Mahipal v.
Rajesh Kumar @ Paliya & Another, reported in 2020 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) (SC)
381; and Harjeet Singh v. Indrpreet Singh & Another , Criminal Appeal
No.883/2021, and submits that where the order granting bail is found to have
been passed without proper application of mind to the relevant material and
the seriousness of the offence, the same is liable to be interfered with.
6. It is further argued that the accused/respondent No.2 has obtained
bail on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and relying upon the
same the court below allowed his bail application. On the strength of the
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
6 MCRC-20681-2026
dated 29.04.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Bail Application

No.241/2026 be set aside and the bail granted to respondent No.2 be
cancelled in the interest of justice.
7. Learned counsel for the State also adopted and supported the
arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/accused
vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.
9. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material
available before this court.
10. From perusal of the bail order passed by the trial court, this court
finds that the bail granted to the respondent/accused considering the overall
facts and circumstances of the case and there is no mention about any
document regarding representation submitted by the either side and the
primary contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant is
that the bail was granted relying/entertaining the forged documents produced
by the accused side before the court below. The bail is granted to the accused
on the basis of overall facts and circumstances of the case and only when the
case of bail is made out. In this regard, the Supreme Court, in the case of
Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349,
while considering the aspect of the circumstances under which bail, once
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
7 MCRC-20681-2026
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."

11. 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.
12. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26078
8 MCRC-20681-2026
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."

13. In this case, learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show
any cogent, overwhelming circumstances or ground. The primary contention
of the petitioner that the court below granted bail to the accused by
entertaining the forged and fabricated documents, does not hold ground as
there is no mention in the impugned bail order about any documents that has
been relied. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to recall the order
granting bail to the respondent No.2/accused persons.
14. Consequently, the present application, seeking cancellation of bail
granted to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.04.2026, sans merit and is
hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 9/1/2026
4:06:59 PM