1 2025:CGHC:25879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1875 of 2025 1 - Kumari Shimpi D/o Late Shri Shiv Shankar Aged About 26 Years Caste - Gaderi, R/o Village - Harra, Post - Nagpur, P.S. - Podi, District - M.C.B. (C.G.) ... applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh - The Station House Officer, Highway Police Chowki - Nagpur, Police Station - Podi, District - M.C.B. (C.G.). 2 - Bipin Chandra Pal S/o Baburam Pal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Haraiya, Podi, P.O. - Naugai, P.S. - Baidhan, Tehsil - Singrauli, District - Singrauli (M.P.). ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Res./State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for 2 respondent No.1/State. 2. The present petition is being preferred for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 namely Bipin Chandra Pal, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.05.2025 in MCRCA No. 636/2025. 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. 18/2025, registered at Police Station – Highway Police chowki, Nagpur, Police Station, Podi, District MCB (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 64 of BNS, 2023. 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 threatened the victim for which the victim has made a complaint before the concerned police who has not taken any action against the accused/respondent No. 2. 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 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 3 respondent No. 2/accused vide order dated 02.05.2025 in MCRCA No. 636/2025, 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 02.05.2025 in MCRCA No. 636/2025. 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: “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 4 petitioner who is the complainant for her oblique motive has filed the instant CRMP for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 2/accused without there being any cogent evidence which goes to show that the accused has entered into any threatening to the complainant or tried to tamper with the evidence. 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 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 02.05.2025, 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. 5 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. 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 amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.25 19:55:19 +0530