Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Udaybhan Dwaivedi on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4148
1 MCRC-2679-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 15 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2679 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
UDAYBHAN DWIVEDI
Appearance:
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for applicant/State
Shri M.K. Mishra - Advocate for 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 vide order dated 16.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33932/2020 in connection with crime No.108/2020 registered at Police Station Gourihar, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act and 25/27 of Arms Act.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/State that the respondent/accused was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 16.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33932/2020 subject to certain conditions, including that he shall not commit any offence after his release. It is submitted that respondent/accused is continuously engaged in the criminal activity and committed heinous offences. Total four criminal cases have been registered against the respondent bearing Crime No.148/2023 registered under Section 363 IPC, Crime No.155/2023 registered under Sections 457, 380 of IPC, Crime No.219/2023 registered under Sections 294, 323, 302, 506, 34 of IPC and Crime Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN Signing time: 1/22/2026 2:24:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4148 2 MCRC-2679-2024 No.167/2025 registered under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 119(1), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, it is prayed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that aforesaid cases are registered against the respondent on the false grounds and he has been falsely implicated in those cases. It is submitted that respondent has not commit any crime of similar nature, therefore, bail cannot be cancelled. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the decision passed by co-ordinate Bench on 29.08.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.29008/2024 (State of M.P. Vs. Rashid Khan @ Arif Khan).
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances, the conduct of the accused shows that he has not only failed to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court but has also misused the liberty granted to him. The settled position of law is that the power to cancel bail has to be exercised cautiously, such power can and should be invoked when the accused misuses the concession granted to him or commits another offence while on bail.
6. The Apex Court in the matter of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held "rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted stand on different footings. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted."
7. In the matter of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , the Apex Court has observed that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in criminal activities, interferes with the course of justice, tampers with witnesses, or otherwise abuses the concession granted. Again, in the matter of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 , it was emphasized Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN Signing time: 1/22/2026 2:24:35 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4148 3 MCRC-2679-2024 that if an accused repeatedly engages in criminal conduct while on bail, the court must step in to cancel such bail to protect the sanctity of judicial process. In the matter of X v. State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511 , the Apex Court has reiterated that liberty granted under bail cannot be permitted to degenerate into a license for committing further offences.
8. In the present case, the accused has clearly violated the conditions of bail by committing continuous offence in total 4 cases out of which some cases were registered for heinous offence. His conduct demonstrates misuse of the liberty granted to him. Continuation of bail in such circumstances would defeat the ends of justice and erode the sanctity of judicial orders.
9. Accordingly, the bail granted to respondent/accused vide order dated 16.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33932/2020 stands cancelled. The respondent - Udaybhan Dwivedi is directed to surrender immediately before the trial court. The trial Court shall issue arrest warrant for his arrest and shall commit him to jail.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerning trial court for information and necessary compliance.
11. With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed and disposed of.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE shahina Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAHINA KHAN Signing time: 1/22/2026 2:24:35 PM