1 2025:CGHC:13824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 997 of 2021 Smt. Mamta Sahu W/o Ganesh Ram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Sector 2, D.D.Nagar, Kanchan Ganga Phase- II, Post And Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Khedu @ Khedan Nishad S/o Firat Ram Nishad, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kundel, Chowki Kareli Badi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Chowki Kareli Badi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Bahrani, PL. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.25 15:06:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1 by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.880/2021 vide order dated 15/03/2021, in relation to the Crime No.236/2020 registered before the Police Chowki Kareli Badi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari for the offences under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that the respondent No.1 assaulted the complainant by means of Lathi of Cement Pot on her head and she sustained severe injuries and she had to be admitted in the Hospital for her treatment and she received treatment for about two months in relation to the injuries sustained on her back and bone fractured and also head injuries. The police has registered the crime for the offence under Section 307 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and it has been registered against the accused as Crime No.236/2020 by the police of Police Chowki Kareli Badi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.). The respondent No.1 (accused) approached before this Court for grant of bail and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15- 03-2021 in M.Cr.C.No.880/2021. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the court's conditions while granting regular bail, the accused has continued to threaten and intimidate the petitioner. These threats include phone calls, in which the accused and his friends threatened to kill the petitioner and her children if she didn't compromise with the accused and support him in the trial. He submits that the petitioner has recorded these phone calls, which clearly indicate that the accused is attempting to dissuade the petitioner from disclosing facts to the court. This is a direct violation of the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail. It is also submitted that the accused has a history of threatening the petitioner, with previous complaints. He would submit that the police took action against the accused under Section 107 and 116 of the CRPC, and the accused even apologized, promising not to repeat such behavior. He would submit that the accused has continued to disregard the court's conditions and the law, misusing his liberty to pressurize the petitioner for withdrawing her case. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper needs no interference. 4 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 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 5 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. 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 6 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. 9. 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 15/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 880/2021 that bail was granted by this Court to the accused person considering the totality of the facts of the case. Though the counsel has contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to him and is not following the terms and conditions imposed upon him, but has not brought on record 7 any such thing which could substantiate his aforesaid contention and make out a prima facie case for cancellation of bail. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge gouri