The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that anticipatory bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled merely because a subsequent FIR is registered against the accused. The judgment underscores that the threshold for cancellation is exceptionally high and requires demonstrable interference with the judicial process, not mere allegations of new offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Sujjan Singh in connection with FIR No. 414/2022 registered at Police Station Susner, involving alleged offences under Sections 307, 325, 506, 34, and 302 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail was granted on 23 February 2023 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., subject to compliance with its conditions.
Procedural History
- April 2022: FIR No. 414/2022 registered against Sujjan Singh and others.
- February 2023: Sujjan Singh granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, affirmed by the High Court in Cri.A. No. 2988/2023.
- March 2025: A new FIR No. 205/2025 was registered against Sujjan Singh and Meharban Singh, alleging offences under Sections 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), and 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST Act.
- January 2026: Petitioner filed MCRC No. 48725/2025 under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail on grounds of violation of bail conditions.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Sujjan Singh, arguing that the registration of a subsequent FIR constituted a breach of bail conditions and an abuse of liberty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the registration of a subsequent FIR, without evidence of interference with trial or violation of bail conditions, constitutes a sufficient ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the registration of FIR No. 205/2025 against Sujjan Singh, involving similar allegations under the SC/ST Act, demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and violated the implied condition of good conduct inherent in anticipatory bail. He argued that the new allegations indicated a risk of witness tampering and obstruction of justice, warranting immediate cancellation.
For the Respondent
The respondent countered that the petitioner had not identified any specific act of interference, such as witness intimidation or destruction of evidence. He relied on Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that mere registration of a subsequent FIR, without proof of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, is insufficient to justify cancellation. The trial in the original case was progressing normally, and the final report in the new case had already been filed, indicating no attempt to evade justice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous review of Supreme Court precedents on the cancellation of bail. It emphasized that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. The Court cited Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan to reaffirm that cancellation requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the due course of justice, evasion of trial, or abuse of the bail concession.
"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."
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how Sujjan Singh had tampered with witnesses, intimidated complainants, or absconded. The mere fact that a new FIR had been registered did not equate to a breach of bail conditions. The Court further referenced Bhuri Bai, observing that the power to cancel bail is not a disciplinary tool for perceived misconduct but a safeguard for the integrity of the trial process.
The Court also highlighted that the veracity of allegations in the subsequent FIR must be tested at trial, not at the bail stage. The absence of any material showing actual interference or abuse rendered the petition unsustainable.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that registration of a subsequent FIR alone does not constitute a supervening circumstance sufficient to cancel anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., absent proof of interference, evasion, or abuse of liberty.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cancellation Requires More Than New Allegations
- Practitioners must now demonstrate actual obstruction, witness tampering, or flight risk - not just the filing of a new FIR - to justify cancellation.
- Courts will not entertain petitions seeking bail cancellation based solely on the pendency of another case.
- The burden remains on the petitioner to show concrete, not speculative, grounds for interference.
Bail Conditions Must Be Explicitly Violated
- Conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be clearly stated and demonstrably breached.
- Vague assertions of "misconduct" or "pattern of behaviour" without specific acts will not suffice.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the accused has violated any express condition, such as reporting to police or refraining from contacting witnesses.
Judicial Caution in Interfering with Liberty
- The judgment reinforces that personal liberty under Article 21 is paramount until proven guilty.
- Judges must resist the temptation to treat bail cancellation as a punitive measure.
- This precedent strengthens the position of defence counsel in resisting opportunistic bail cancellation petitions filed by complainants frustrated by procedural delays.
