1 2025:CGHC:19429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1427 of 2025 Garib Saay Markam S/o Shri Jaisingh Markam, Aged About 35 Years At- Village Pandey Aathgaon, Ps Pharasgaon, District Kondagaon C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS Kondagaon, District Kondagaon C.G. 2 - Asit Chakraborty S/o Samiranand Chakraborty Aged About 53 Years At Flat No. 7f, Sai Prerna Apartment, Ranchi Pundag, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (through V.C.) For Respondent No. 1/State :Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition is being preferred for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 namely Garib Saay Markam, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 dated 03.03.2025 in MCRCA No. 292/2025. 3. The respondent No.2 had preferred anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 15/2025, registered at Police Station - Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC and Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 02/accused, had made a strict stipulation upon him that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts, but despite the order of this Court, the respondent No. 2 on same date on which his anticipatory bail was allowed i.e. on 03/03/2025, connected with the persons acquainted with the facts of the case along with the petitioner and at about 8 PM threatened them that he has obtained anticipatory bail and the persons who have lodged complaint against him would have to suffer dire consequences. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a written complaint before the concerned PS about the such threat given by respondent No. 2, but till now the concerned PS has paid no heed towards the complaint of the petitioner and therefore, the private respondent is continuously harassing the petitioner/complainant and the other persons acquainted with the facts of the case. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 has willfully violated the conditions of bail and from the conduct of the respondent No.2/accused, it is apparent that he has no regard 3 towards the law and he is deliberately misusing the liberty given by this Court, therefore his anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that from perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused vide order dated 03.03.2025 in MCRCA No. 292/2025, therein appears to be no any infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the same. Therefore, the present petitioner is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused/respondent No 2 dated 03.03.2025 in MCRCA No. 292/2025. 7. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents do not suggest that the petitioner is able to project any valid reason for cancellation of bail with respect to the touchstone of principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025 [Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.] while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “SufÏce to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High 4 Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 8. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondent Nos. 2 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be cancelled when (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible, once the bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled. In facts of this case nowhere 5 suggest that any of the aforesaid condition exists in the instance case, therefore, the principles laid down as above shall squarely apply in the instant case. 10. Considering the same and applying the aforesaid principles, in the considered view of this Court, no case is made out for cancellation of bail or review or recall the order, it transpires from the record that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent No. 2 on 03.03.2025, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the respondent No.2 cancelled, therefore, I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal