-1- 2025:CGHC:3241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Kabilas SatnamiPUR CRMP No. 1774 of 2023 Sanjay Bandhe S/o Lt. Jawaharlal Bandhe Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Barauda, P.S. - Mana Camp, Tehsil - Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Ashwani Bandhe S/o Lt. Mohanlal Bandhe Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Barauda, P.S. - Mana Camp, Tahsil - Arrange, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.01.2025 1) The present CRMP has been preferred against the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in MCRCA No. 173 of 2023 (Ashwani Bandhe v. State of Chhattisgarh) by this Court, whereby bail application of respondent No.2 preferred under Section 438 of the CrPC for the grant of anticipatory bail Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- was allowed. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an FIR was registered against respondent No.2 (applicant) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur on 20.01.2023. He would further submit that the document i.e. Gift Deed was executed in the year 1942 and the year of birth of the father of respondent No.2 (applicant), namely, Mohan is 1944, which was executed by Daimat w/o Kabilas Satnami in his favour. Mr. Tiwari would submit that the gift deed is a forged document and it was placed to obtain anticipatory bail, whereas, such document is not in existence. He would further argue that the gift deed was placed before the State authorities and later on, a copy of that document was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereas the certified copy was placed by the petitioner herein and the same would reveal that no such document was executed. He would also argue that the original gift deed was placed by the petitioner herein and according to that document, the gift deed was executed by Daimat in favour of one Latelu vide Ex.P/9. He would lastly submit that the bail granted to respondent No.2 may be cancelled as the same was obtained by making incorrect submissions before the Court. 3) Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General would oppose the -3- submissions made by Mr. Tiwari and submit that original copies of the gift deeds dated 12.01.1942 and 17.10.1955 are not available in the record room, therefore, their genuineness cannot be examined. 4) Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the matter is subjudice before the revenue authorities, a criminal case is also pending before the competent criminal court and the genuineness of both the documents are to be examined by the concerned Court. He would further submit that very objection was raised by the State as well as the complainant at the time of the disposal of bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC and on similar grounds, the bail granted to respondent No.2 cannot be rejected. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) In the matter of CBI, Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others (2011) 5 SCC 296, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23, held as under : "23...that there is difference between yardstick for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The -4- satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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) It is true that factors relevant for the grant of bail are different and the approach required to be adopted while considering the application for cancellation of bail is different. 8) Taking into consideration the above accumulation of law as also the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no material available on the record to show any justification for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the instant CrMP is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim