Avinash Shrivastav vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that no grounds were made out for the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dolatram and others vs. State of Haryana, which established that cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with justice, evasion of justice, or abuse of the concession of bail. The Court noted that after granting bail, no specific allegation was raised that respondent No. 2 had misused her liberty, personally or through an agent, by filing complaints or misappropriating funds. The Court also referenced Ms. X. vs. State of Telangana and others, reiterating these principles. Regarding the allegations of false complaints and obtaining contracts, the Court directed the petitioner to file requisite representations before the concerned authorities. The Court found that the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, such as not repeating the offence, not threatening witnesses, and not leaving India without permission, were sufficient. Therefore, the application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Avinash Shrivastav, filed a petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2, Deepti Shrivastava, on October 28, 2025. The bail was granted in connection with Crime No. 319/2025, registered for offences under Sections 340(2), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2 and her husband forged a partnership deed for M/s Reliable Movers Infinity, opened a bank account, and withdrew Rs. 19,00,000/-. Further allegations included the misuse of the firm's bank account to obtain a loan of Rs. 50,00,000/-, obtaining contracts based on forged documents, and causing the cancellation of the petitioner's railway contract through false complaints. Respondent No. 2 contended that the allegations were baseless, citing a family partition and a sale deed, and argued that the petitioner had retired from the firm and she was introduced as a new partner. She also stated that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued based on an audit report and she was not related to it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 should be cancelled on the grounds of alleged forgery, misuse of funds, and filing of false complaints, thereby constituting an abuse of the concession of bail. 2. Whether the alleged actions of respondent No. 2, including filing complaints with the Goods and Service Tax Department and obtaining contracts based on forged documents, warrant the cancellation of her bail. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 had suppressed material facts to obtain bail and was misusing her liberty. He contended that the forged partnership deed and subsequent actions constituted an abuse of the bail granted. He also highlighted that false complaints were made to various departments, including the Goods and Service Tax Department, leading to adverse consequences for him. The petitioner relied on the fact that a handwriting expert report indicated forged signatures on the retirement deed as a basis for cancellation. Respondent No. 2's Arguments: Respondent No. 2 argued that the allegations were baseless and that a family partition had occurred. She submitted that the petitioner had retired from the firm and she was introduced as a new partner. She further contended that the case registered did not fall into the criminal category and that the complainant had turned a civil case into a criminal one. She cited Supreme Court judgments stating that bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled without exceptional circumstances and that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation.