1 2025:CGHC:1626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1064 of 2022 1 - XYZ ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Suraj Prasad Gupta S/o Arun Prasad, Aged About 31 Years Occupation Business, R/o Village Tapakhass Main Road, P.S. Prakhand Latehar, District : Latehar, Jharkhand ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.01/State : Ms. Neeta T. Thawani, PL For Respondent No.02 : Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate 10/01/2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail granted to accused/respondent No.2 – Suraj Prasad Gupta by the order dated 11.04.2022 passed in CRA PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.01.13 17:14:04 +0530 2 No.36/2022. The said application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed by the accused in connection with Crime No.172/2021 registered in Police Station Balrampur for the offence under Sections 312, 376, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2/accused has violated the bail conditions by extending threat and also making a Facebook call on 25.04.2022 to withdraw the Police case. A complaint in this regard has also been made before the SHO Police Station Balrampur. A further complaint in this regard has also been made on 06.07.2022 before the SHO City Kotwali, Balrampur to the effect that on the said date, at about 4:30 P.M., the accused came into the Office of the Managing Director, District Laghuvanopaj, Sarkari Sangh, Balrampur and abused her in the name of the caste and also extended threat to life. On such complaint, the Police has not registered any cognizable offence against the accused and only given an information under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that in respect of the incident dated 25.04.2022 also, a non-cognizable offence has been registered and an intimation vide No.98/2022 has been given on 11.05.2022. Therefore, in such backdrop, learned counsel prays to cancel the bail granted to the accused by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that even after the release of the accused, the prosecutrix is continuously contacting the accused over whatsapp and also calling him through her mobile No. 6260422903. The copies of the call record have also been annexed vide Annexure R/1. He would further submit that even the 3 prosecutrix did not turn up for recording of the evidence though the case was listed several times, however, the respondent/accused is regularly appearing. He would further submit that the victim has not sought any Police help from the concerned Court for the alleged threat from the accused to depose before the Court. He would further submit that prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 33 years and after considering all these aspects the bail has been granted to the accused. Therefore, there is no such compelling circumstances or any misconduct on the part of the respondent/accused warranting cancellation of his bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that after releasing on bail, no cognizable offence has been registered against the respondent/accused. She would further submit that a notice has been given under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record carefully. 6. It is well settled that 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. 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 4 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.” 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and particularly considering the principles laid down in the matter of Dolatram (supra) and considering the facts situation of the case herein, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for cancellation of bail. 8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P bereft of any merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka