1 2025:CGHC:35473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2298 of 2025 Shyam Kumar Vastrakar S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Vastrakar Aged About 39 Years R/o C-126, Mahaveer City, Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilapsur (C.G.) 2. Bhim Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Chhotelal Aged About 36 Years R/o Ganiyari, P.S. Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 – Bhim Kumar Suryavanshi, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by an order dated 04.02.2025 in MCRCA No. 187/2025. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:47:18 +0530 2 2. The petitioner had preferred an anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.1057/2024, registered at Police Station- Kota, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, some amount was transferred into the bank account of the petitioner, and, as a result, the accused/respondent No.2 is trying to pressurize the petitioner for withdrawing the case and he is also trying to falsely implicate the petitioner in a false case of bribe by sending money through digital payment. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 should be canceled. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the co-accused persons were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 20/2025, on which ground this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.02.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 187 of 2025, and there appears to be no any infirmity while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons dated 04.02.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 187 of 2025. 3 6. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents do not suggest that the petitioner is able to project any valid reason for cancellation of bail with respect to the touchstone of principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025 [Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.] while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 7. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondent No.2 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 4 8. The petitioner is a Food Inspector who lodged the FIR against the accused/respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 187/2025 and it is stated that after the said incident some amount was transferred into the bank account of the petitioner, and, as a result, the accused/respondent No.2 is trying to pressurize the petitioner for withdrawing the case. But it is very strange that the petitioner who is a public servant and he lodged the FIR against the accused/respondent No.2 in his official capacity, has come up before this Court for cancelling the bail granted by this Court to the accused because of some personal grievance. 9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be canceled when (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible, once the bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled. In facts of this case nowhere suggest that any of the aforesaid condition exists in the instance case, therefore, the principles laid down as above shall squarely apply in the instant case. 10. Considering the same and applying the aforesaid principles, in the 5 considered view of this Court, no case is made out for cancellation of bail or review or recall the order, it transpires from the record that the co-accused persons were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 20/2025 on which ground the respondent No.2 was granted bail by this Court, and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent No.2 by this Court on 04.02.2025, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the petitioner cancelled, therefore, I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 12. However, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti