1 2025:CGHC:18000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1760 of 2023 1 - Dev Kumari Chaturvedi, W/o Late Shri Kholuram Chaturvedi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Pandri, Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ajay Bhaskar S/o Santu Bhaskar Aged About 38 Years, 3 - Sohrab@ Vivek Bhaskar, S/o Santu Bhaskar, Aged About 26 Years, 4 - Jaiprakash @ Appu Bhaskar S/o Santu Bhaskar, Aged About 33 Years, 5 - Santu Bhaskar S/o Late Bhikhari Bhaskar, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Pandri, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respondents No. 2 to 5 are Accused in Crime No. 506/2021 Registered At Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh and have been released on bail before this Hon’ble Court). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. 2 No.1/State For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. praying for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No. 2 to 5 by orders dated 25.07.2022 and 19.06.2023 passed by this Court in MCRC Nos. 1787/2022 and 2048/2023 respectively. 3. The facts of the case are that on 26.09.2021, the accused persons assaulted the husband of the complainant with hands, fists and rod and also used filthy language. It is also alleged that the respondent No.2 assaulted with a rod on the head of the deceased Kholuram, due to which, he died during treatment. Based on this, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate for the said offence. After filing of the charge-sheet, respondents No. 2 to 5 had filed bail application before this Court and after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the documents, this Court vide orders dated 25.07.2022 and 19.06.2023 granted bail to respondents No. 2 to 5. After releasing on bail, respondents No. 2 to 5 and their family members are harassing the petitioner and her family members and also pressurizing the petitioner and her family members for withdrawal of the case. Hence, this petition has been filed by the 3 petitioner for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after releasing on bail the accused persons continued harassing the petitioner and her family members and extending threat by using filthy language, due to which the petitioner made an application/complaint before the concerned authority to grant protection, but till date the police authority could not initiate any action against the accused persons. The petitioner also made an application before the jurisdictional police station for the illegal act done by the accused, but the concerned police refused to accept the same, then the petitioner made an application before the higher authority, which is still pending. The accused persons contrary to the set conditions, is indulging in intimidating the witnesses, including the main eye witnesses from pursuing the trial and accusations. The accused persons have deliberately contravened the terms and conditions imposed by the learned Court while granting bail to them. If the accused persons are permitted to be on liberty, there is serious threat to the life and property of the petitioner and her family members. The accused persons are even engaged in criminal intimidation in order to frustrate and influence the witnesses likely to depose. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondents No. 2 to 5 vide orders dated 25.07.2022 and 19.06.2023 by this Court in MCRC Nos. 1787/2022 and 2048/2023 is liable to be cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 supports the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 strongly opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that 4 respondents No.2 to 5/accused have not violated any condition of the bail and did not misuse the liberty granted to them by this Court and they are regularly appearing before the trial court. The petitioner has filed the instant petition only to harass the respondents No. 2 to 5 as she has personal ill will against them and in order to take revenge the instant petition has been filed though there is no any circumstance to show that respondents No. 2 to 5 has violated the bail order. He further submits that during course of trial the petitioner as well as other important prosecution witnesses have been examined and their statements have been recorded therefore there is no occasion to threat petitioner and other witnesses. The complaints i.e. Annexure P/2 and P/3 have been made after her examination on 23.03.2023, she was examined before the trial Court and this Court considered the bail application of Ajay Bhaskar/Respondent No. 02 after her statement as she has not stated anything incriminating against accused- Ajay Bhaskar and the said fact is evident from the bail order dated 19.06.2023. A Certified copy of the statement/evidence of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure R/1. The petitioner has failed to point out or elicit any exceptional circumstance warranting interference of this Court, therefore the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from record that this Court granted bail to the respondents No. 2 to 5 vide orders dated 25.07.2022 and 19.06.2023. Petitioner filed some police complaints along with this petition and alleged that all the accused persons are engaged in criminal intimidation, therefore, their bail is liable to be cancelled. 5 9. The statement of the petitioner was recorded before the learned trial Court on 23.03.2023 vide Annexure R/1 whereas it is clear from Annexure P/2 and P/3 that the petitioner made complaints against the accused persons on 22.06.2023 and 08.07.2023. Thus, it is clear that before lodging the said complaints, the statement of the petitioner was recorded before the learned trial Court and this Court after considering the statement of the petitioner, granted bail to the accused persons. 10. Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. provides as under:- “(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.” 11.In the matter of Chandra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Chhattitgarh and another & other connected matters vide order dated 25.06.2021 passed in CRMP No. 1686 of 2019, this Court held in paras 26, 27 and 30 as under:- “26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Abdul Basit alias Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Choudhary and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754, has considered all its earlier judgments on the issue and pointed out distinction between review/recall of order granting bail from cancellation of bail order and have held that the Court granting bail cannot review its order on the ground of its being illegal, unjustified or perverse in view of express bar contained in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and held in paragraphs 20, 21, 26 and 27 of the report, which reads thus:- "20. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court 6 seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of its being perverse in law. Such determination would entail eventual cancellation of bail. The circumstances brought on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being perverse in law. 21. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the court. 26. In the instant case, the order for bail in the bail application preferred by the accused- petitioners herein finally disposes of the issue in consideration and grants relief of bail to the applicants therein. Since, no express provision for review of order granting bail exists under the 7 Code, the High Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 of the Code applies herein barring the review of judgment and order of the Court granting bail to the petitioner-accused. Even though the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the Court under Section 439(2) of the Code, it does not vest the power of review in the court which granted bail. Even in the light of fact of misrepresentation by the petitioner-accused during the grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the respondent/informant's prayer by setting in review of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition. 27. Herein, the High Court has assigned an erroneous interpretation to the well settled position of law, assumed expanded jurisdiction into itself and passed an order in contravention of Section 362 of the Code cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners herein. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the High Court is not justified in reviewing its earlier order of grant of bail and thus, the impugned judgment and order required to be set aside. 27." Further, on On the issue De with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of ball 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 8 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 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. 30. 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 9 has been abused in any manner No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the 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." 12. Applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter referred to above, having perused the entire material available on record, provisions contained in Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., this Court finds that no grounds are made out to cancel the order granting bail to respondents No.2 to 5/accused. However, it is made clear that the accused shall adhere to the conditions imposed while they are enlarged on bail and shall not violate any of the conditions. 13. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV