1 2025:CGHC:927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1455 of 2022 1 - ABC ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Parasmani Chandrakar @ Paras S/o Shankar Lal Chandrakar Aged About 37 Years R/o Shriram Vihar, Arang, Police Station Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri A. Hussain appears on behalf of Shri Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Shri Dilman Rati Minj, GA. For Respondent No.2: Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 07/01/2025: 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the CrPC for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 herein by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2022 passed in MCRC No.1268/2022. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.07 17:30:19 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2/accused has violated the bail conditions and extended threat and as such, a complaint has been filed on 24.7.2022 before the Police Station Khamtarai and the said Police Station has recorded the complaint of the petitioner and advised him under Section 155 of the CrPC to approach the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has also made a complaint before the SP, Raipur. After release on bail, the respondent/ accused has also moved an application for cancellation of bail against the mother of the petitioner and a false report was lodged on 28.6.2022 by the brother of respondent No.2 against the friend of mother of the petitioner herein. He has also adopted various ways to threaten the tenants of her mother, who are residing at Jagdalpur for which a complaint has been made to the SP, Bastar. Since respondent No.2 is misusing the freedom, the bail granted to him by this Court may be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the said prayer. He would submit that a false case has been cooked up by the mother and the victim has been used as tool for lodging the FIR and this Court after considering all the aspects has granted bail. He submits that respondent No.2 has not extended any threat and a false complaint has been made. Respondent No.2 has only availed legal remedy and filed suitable application before the competent authority. Statement of the victim and her mother has already been completed. Therefore, no case is made out for cancellation of bail. 3 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that on the complaint made by the victim, no cognizable offence has been made out and information under Section 155 of the CrPC has been communicated to her. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. In the matter of Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana {(1995) 1 SCC 349}, principle regarding cancellation of bail has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-4 which reads thus:- “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 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 4 factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 7. Considering the entire fact situation of the case and the principle regarding cancellation of bail laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dolat Ram (Supra), this Court is not inclined to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. 8. Accordingly, the CrMP is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve