1 2025:CGHC:1160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 26 of 2025 Mohan Lal Goyan S/o Late Mr. Manbahoran Aged About 51 Years R/o Behind Palace, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In-Charge, Police Station Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamlesh Prasad Mishra S/o Shivbhola Mishra Aged About 46 Years R/o Badan Singh Mohalla, Manendragarh, P.S. And Tehsil- Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. UKS Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1/State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.08 18:01:53 +0530 2 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 – Kamlesh Prasad Mishra, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2024 in connection with Crime No.144/2024 relating to the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the complainant in Crime No.144/2024 and he has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2024. He further submits that the accused/respondent No.2 has misused the liberty granted to the accused as he is not cooperating with the investigation, as it appears from the police report of the concerned police station as well as the fact that after being released on bail, the accused/respondent No.2 again indulged in some scuffle with the complainant. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.1 submits that it is for the Court concerned whether to grant bail to an accused or not and the prosecution agency can only investigate the matter. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 in respect of the FIR No.144/2024. 6. It is an admitted position that after lodging of the FIR bearing 3 Crime No.144/2024 by the petitioner against the respondent No.2, the police has concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the investigation is still unconcluded. Hence, in such circumstances, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the concerned Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation within a period of six weeks from today, in accordance with law and submit a police report before the concerned trial Court. 7. Insofar as cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 is concerned, I do not find any good ground for interference with the same and as such, the present CRMP stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu