1 2025:CGHC:22405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1750 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Prasad Kachhwaha S/o Late Ramprasad Kachhwaha Aged About 61 Years R/o Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, Police Station - Sirgitti, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.), (Objector), (Injured) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Bilaspur, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Chintaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, Police Station - Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), 3 - Govind Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, Police Station - Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Gautam Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, Police Station - Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner :Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State :Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.05.2025 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1. Heard Mr.Rajbahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition is being preferred for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 namely Ramkumar Sahu, Govind Sahu and Gautam Sahu, as they were enlarged on anticipatory bails vide orders dated 19.12.2024 in MCRCA Nos. 1432/2024 & 1467/2024. 3. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 had preferred anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bails, in connection with Crime No. 675/2024, registered at Police Station - Sirgitti, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 296, 3 (5), 351 (2), 118 (2) of the BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4/accused, had made a strict stipulation upon them that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts, but despite the Court’s order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 threatened the petitioner and his family and pressurized them to compromise the matter and also threatened to kill them, if they do not compromise the matter and his entire family is in shock and is living under extreme mental stress due to the threats received. Therefore, on 26.04.2025 the petitioner made, a complaint against the accused/ respondent Nos. 3 2 to 4 before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) and a copy of which has been sent to the respondent No. 2 and also to Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) and requesting them to take appropriate action against the accused persons, keeping in mind the seriousness of the above matter. He further submits that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have willfully violated the conditions of bail and from the conduct of the respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused, it is apparent that they have no regard towards the law and they are deliberately misusing the liberty given by this Court, therefore their anticipatory bails are 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 bails to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4/accused vide orders dated 19.12.2024 in MCRCA Nos. 1432/2024 and 1467/2024, therein appears to be no any infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the same. Therefore, the present petition 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 bails to the accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 vide orders dated 19.12.2024 in MCRCA Nos. 1432/2024 and 1467/2024. 7. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents, it is clear that it does not suggest that the petitioner is 4 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 canceling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “Suffice 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 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 to 4 are 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 5 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 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 bails to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and after the anticipatory bails being granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 19.12.2024, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for canceling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the anticipatory bails of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 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 Nos.2 to 4/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to 6 proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13. Office 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 AMIT PATEL