1 2025:CGHC:37451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1073 of 2023 1 - Xyz (the details fo the prosecutrix is filed and enclosed in envelop) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Tejendra Sahu S/o Late Shri Pokhanlal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Devpur, Police Station Sihawa, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Nagri, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anjali Singh Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 31/07/2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “Cr.P.C.”) for PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.08.01 16:22:51 +0530 2 cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1/accused by the order dated 10.04.2023 passed in MCRCA No.321/2023. The said application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed by the accused/applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.30/2023 registered at Police Station- Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after granting anticipatory bail, the accused had breached the terms and conditions of the bail order. She submits that the accused has repeated the offence as on 19.04.2023, he assaulted the complainant/petitioner, abused her in filthy language and also threatened to kill her, for which, FIR No.57/2023 has been registered at Police Station Nagri on 20.04.2023. Therefore, in this backdrop, she prays to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to him by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused submits that this Court, after considering the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady and they have been in a relationship for the last 2-3 years, granted anticipatory bail to the accused. He further submits that to create pressure on 19.04.2023, the prosecutrix and her parents came to the accused’s office, created a scene, used filthy language by abusing him and thereby, defamed him. They also assaulted and threatened to kill the accused. He would further submit that prior to the lodging of the FIR by the prosecutrix on the same date, the respondent/accused had already lodged an FIR regarding the said incident and as a counterblast, to save 3 herself from the aforesaid incident, a false and cooked-up story has been made out, therefore, he prays that this Petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully. 5. This Court, after considering the nature of the offence, has granted anticipatory bail to the applicant and further, for cancellation of bail, a very cogent and overwhelming circumstance is necessary and this proposition of law is reiterated in a catena of judgments. In the matter of Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, the following was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4: “4.Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, 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.” 4 6. In view of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court is of the view that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that both the parties have lodged the FIR on the same date i.e. on 19.04.2023, and that the law has taken its own course, the accused has been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no strong case is made out for cancellation of bail. 7. Accordingly, this CRMP deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka