1 2025:CGHC:1799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1571 of 2023 Jagdesh Sahu S/o Late. Shri. Ramsawak Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Semra (B) Tel Bhakhara, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 -State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ashwani Dadsena S/o Late Shri Gambhir Ram Dadsena Aged About 58 Years R/o Amarpuri Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Payal Jain, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : None present, though served. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 10-01-2025 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner / complainant for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused vide order dated 03.05.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2469 of 2023 (Ashwani Dadsena vs. State of Chhattisgarh). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has granted regular bail to respondent No. 2/accused – Ashwani Dadsena vide order 2 dated 03.05.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2469 of 2023 in respect of Crime No. 31/2023 registered at Police Station Jamgaon (R),Th. Patan, District Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC. It is further contended that in aforesaid application, bail was granted to respondent No. 2/accused on being contention made by his counsel that respondent No. 2 is ready to return the amount received from the complainant, but after getting bail, he did not return the said amount. It is contended further that respondent No. 2/accused has cheated various other persons, as such, 19 cases have been registered against him in various police stations, therefore, she prayed that bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused may be cancelled. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that appropriate order may be passed. 4. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 2, though served. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears, there was no such terms while granting bail to the respondent No. 2/accused vide order dated 03.05.2023 that if respondent No. 2/accused did not return amount received from the complainant, then bail granted to him will be liable to be cancelled. Further, granting bail is easy, but the same cannot be cancelled on trivial issues, as has been raised by the petitioner in the instant case, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for cancelling the bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused vide order dated 03.05.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2469 of 2023. 6. Three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi reported in 1978 (2) SCC 411 has made the following elemental distinction in defining the nature of exercise while cancelling bail that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail 3 already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non- bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. 7. Again, in the matter of Ramcharan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004 (13) SCC 617, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that order of bail can be cancelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on re-appreciation of facts of the case. 8. The petitioner/complainant has not brought any compelling facts, which could be considered just & proper to take a view for cancelling the bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused person. 9. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore-cited judgments i.e. State (Delhi Administration) (supra) & Ramcharan (supra), I am of the view that the present CrMP has no substance, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, the Cr.M.P., being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.14 12:32:26 +0530 4 5 6