1 2025:CGHC:13827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 942 of 2022 Rachna Singh W/o Prashant Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o LIG 51 Sada Colony, Police Station Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Darri, District Korba Chhattisgarh., 2 - Manoj Singh S/o Raghunath Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Muhlla Shanti Nagar, Police Station Mithanpura, District Mujjafarpur , Bihar. 3 - Jayadevi W/o Manoj Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Muhlla Shanti Nagar, Police Station Mithanpura, District Mujjafarpur, Bihar. 4 - Ameyanand @ Gautam Singh S/o Manoj Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Muhlla Shanti Nagar, Police Station Mithanpura, District Mujjafarpur, Bihar. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Anshul Tiwari, Advoctate. For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL. For respondents No.2 to 4 : Shri V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Atul Kesharwani, Advocate. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.26 11:12:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. The present petitioner by way of this petition is challenging the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in the bail application no. 87/2022 preferred by the respondents no.2 to 4 who were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 498 A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were apprehending their arrest in Crime No.215/2021 registered at P.S. Darri, District Korba (C.G.). 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the written compliant was made by the petitioner dated 20.09.2021 and the F.I.R. of the same was lodged on 21.09.2021 against the persons namely Prashant Singh, Jayadevi, Manoj Singh and Ameyanand @ Gautam Singh at P.S. Darri, District Korba (C.G.). The persons named in the F.I.R. are being alleged to have committed the offence under Section 498 A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. F.I.R. has been lodged inter-alia on the allegations that the marriage of the petitioner and Prashant Sisodiya was solemnized on 10.12.2017 and after the passage of 10 days the husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law of the petitioner started assaulting and abusing the petitioner for a reason that she has not meet the 3 dowry demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- over the top of already given hefty amount. 2(i)Father of the petitioner has transferred Rs. 21,00,000/- to the bank account of different persons ie on 23.10.2017 Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account of Manoj Kumar Singh and 1,00,000/- in one HDFC account, on 15.11.2017 Rs. 7,00,000/- in the account of Sanjay Kumar Thakur, on 16.11.2017 Rs. 10,00,000/- in the account of Murli Thakur, on 17.11.2017 Rs. 2,00,000/- in the account of Sanjay Kumar Thakur and Rs. 4,00,000/- cash has been given in Tilak Ceremony which sum up to a total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and on top of that one Honda city car, complete furniture of the house, expenses of stay of relatives in hotel, catering and the complete expense of ring ceremony in 5 star hotel. These all are the expense which was forced on the father of the petitioner by the respondents No.2 to 4. 2(ii) On the 2nd day of marriage Bride feast (Bahu Bhoj) ceremony was held and on the said date all the relatives along with the family members of the petitioner were present but the behaviour of the mother in law, father in law and husband was not ideal towards the family members, relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner was also forced to break the relation with the relatives and family members. The in laws of the petitioner also gave life threat to the petitioner if they will find 4 that she is talking to the relatives. During the subsistence of marriage there were many incident in which the petitioner has been assaulted and abused by the respondents No.2 to 4. The in laws of the petitioner also used to do character assassination of the petitioner. 2(iii)When the petitioner got pregnant she was not treated with caution nor supplied with the basic necessities which are essential for pregnant lady. It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the respondent family also restricted the food supplies of the petitioner and she was even troubled by the respondent family several times for a small issues. During the subsistence of marriage the petitioner gave birth to a girl child on 17.12.2019. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Court has erred in granting bail to respondents no. 2 to 4 without adequately considering the petitioner's submissions and the gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are present in this case, and the respondent no. 2 to 4 has been accused of committing cruelty. The lower court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that requires careful consideration of relevant aspects before granting bail. The learned counsel submits that the discretionary jurisdiction under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC must be exercised judiciously, balancing the 5 rights of the accused and the interests of society. The court must provide brief reasons for granting or refusing bail. He would further submit that in this case, the respondents no. 2 to 4 are resident of Bihar, and there is a likelihood of absconding, manipulating witnesses, or altering evidence. He would submit that order granting bail is unsustainable in law and prayed that the same be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper needs no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held in para 4, which reads as under:- “4. Rejection of 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 6 cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 7 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:- “7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 8. In the case of Abdul Basit Versus Md. Abdul Kadir Choudhury (2015) 1 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the accused persons misrepresented the fact for obtaining the order of bail, the High Court should not have entertained the prayer for cancellation of bail by making reviewing earlier order of grant of bail. 8 9. The trial court has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and passed bail order. The petitioner has not shown any cogent reason for cancellation of bail. It is also pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has also not shown that the respondents namely Manoj Singh, Jayadevi & Ameyanand @ Gautam Singh have tried to tamper the evidence and it is not brought to the notice of this court that the respondents have breached the condition of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order dated 11/02/2022 that bail was granted by the trial Court to the accused persons considering the totality of the facts of the case. No case is made out for cancellation of bail. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge gouri