1 2025:CGHC:2196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1511 of 2022 1 - Prakash Narayan Pandey S/o Dwarika Prasad Pandey Aged About 61 Years R/o Chakradharpur, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Pratibha Tiwari W/o Shri Alok Tiwari Aged About 41 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Sakri, Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Anantram Mishra S/o Late Shri Visnu Prasad Mishra Aged About 71 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Urvashi Mishra W/o Anantram Mishra Aged About 61 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Shradha Pathak W/o Sandeep Pathak Aged About 37 Years Present Address Flat No. 304, Ngo Block C/police Colony, Raipur, R/o Ward No. 26, Killa Ward, Infront Of Tirupati Lodge, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Vimal Mishra S/o Anant Mishra Aged About 33 Years Labour Inspector, Labour Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, At Present R/o Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.14 17:27:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 14/01/2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the CrPC for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2022 passed in MCRCA No.1002/2022 & other connected matters. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage of deceased Surya Pandey was solemnized with Pravin Mishra on 6.7.2018 and on the date of marriage itself, a demand of different motorcycle namely, Thunder Honda Bullet was made by the husband, though at the time of marriage, TVS Apache Motorcycle was given in dowry. Being dissatisfied with the article given in dowry, the husband and his close relatives started harassing and abusing the deceased and because of such harassment, the deceased was found dead on 14.6.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the husband has pressed the neck of the deceased and as such, murder has been committed by the husband Pravin Mishra. On 14.6.2022, Pravin Mishra has also extended threat for divorce. He further submits that the deceased was carrying pregnancy of about 4-5 months at the time of incident. Though merg statement has been recorded on the date of the incident i.e. 14.6.2022, but the concerned SHO has not registered the FIR. In such circumstances, a written complaint was forwarded through registered post on 20.6.2022 and the FIR has been lodged on 30.6.2022 3 on the basis of written complaint of the father. The family members of the husband have also taken the work from the deceased as a maid. The deceased has given birth to a baby girl on 1.12.2020 and thereafter the family members of the husband also used to taunt her for giving birth to a girl child. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the father of the deceased has raised an objection. 4. The present counsel has also filed an application to that effect and at the time of hearing, though his name has been published in the cause list, but he did not make his appearance in the first call and the anticipatory bail application has been decided, though the written objection has been made in the matter of Pratibha Tiwari Vs. State of CG (MCRCA No.1002/2022). When a query has been put, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that no objection has been filed in respect of other accused namely, Anantram Mishra, Urvashi Mishra, Shradha Pathak and Vimal Mishra. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the victim/complainant has no statutory right to be heard, however, when the objection is filed, in the ends of justice, an opportunity may be granted. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagjeet Singh & Others Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Another {SLP (Cri.) No.2640/2022, decided on 18.4.2022}. Lastly, he submits that considering all the above aspects, anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/accused may be cancelled. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/accused would oppose the said prayer. He would submit that though an objection has been filed before the coordinate Bench in MCRC No.484/2023, but at the time of consideration of the said bail application, learned counsel for the present petitioner/complainant has not made his appearance at the time of hearing nor did he protest the said bail application, and only to harass the close relatives of the husband, this nature of objection has been raised for cancellation of anticipatory bail, which has already been granted by this Court considering all the aspects. Moreover, all the relatives against whom an FIR has been lodged are residing separately. Therefore, no case is made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned State Counsel would submit that all the bail applications have been duly opposed by the State and all the grounds have already been considered while allowing the anticipatory bail applications. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 9. 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 5 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 nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 10. 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 anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/accused. 11. Accordingly, the CrMP is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve