1 2025:CGHC:15066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2142 of 2023 Gurmeet Singh Bhatiya S/o Late Mahalsingh Bhatiya Aged About 53 Years R/o Plot No. 5, Akash Ganga Complex, Supela, Dist. Durg (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Devendra Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Abhishek Agrawal S/o Ashok Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Krishna Rice Mill, Mungeli Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sanjay Khanna S/o Late Indra Khanna Aged About 48 Years R/o Warehouse Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Dulal Banerjee S/o Durgadas Banerjee Aged About 52 Years R/o 4/44, Parasrampuriya Towers Link Garden Chs, Off Link Road, Lokhandwada, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053 (Maharashtra) 5 - Mayur Govindbhai Kanani S/o Govind Bhai Gokaldas Kanani Aged About 43 Years R/o B/303, Ekta Bhumi Garden, Duttpada Road-2, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali East, Mumbai 400066 (Maharashtra) 6 - Sudhir Sarin S/o Satish Chander Sarin Aged About 56 Years R/o B-46, Second Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Delhi 110017 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.04.02 12:23:20 +0530 2 7 - Sunil Sethi S/o Baldeoraj Sethi Aged About 57 Years R/o 80-C, Lig Dda Flats, Gulabi Baug, Delhi 110007. --- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Suyash Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of CrPC for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused persons by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure P/1). 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that one Ashok Agrawal is Manager of one company, namely, Hathway CCN Multinet Private Limited (the CCN Company' for short). All the other Applicants/Non-applicants as well as Complainant/Applicant Gurmeet Singh Bhatia are Directors of the CCN Company. Applicant/ Non-applicant Abhishek Agrawal is son of Applicant Ashok Agrawal. The CCN Company is engaged in business of cable network in the State of Chhattisgarh since 2010. On 10.6.2020, a written complaint was filed by Complainant/Director Gurmeet Singh Bhatia 3 against other Directors and Manager of the CCN Company, i.e., the Applicants herein with the allegations inter alia that the business of the CCN Company is being run by Applicant/ Non-applicants Ashok Agrawal and his son Applicant/ Non-applicants Abhishek Agrawal. After appointment of the Complainant/Applicant as a Director of the CCN Company, he made demands for his dividend in the CCN Company from Applicant/ Non- applicant Abhishek Agrawal from time to time. Applicant/ on-applicant Abhishek Agrawal assured him that he will be paid his dividend in future. Whenever the Complainant/Applicant asked to show accounts of the CCN Company, he was not shown the same and was being avoided to see the same. In the year 2016, work of digital connection was started by the CCN Company. Then the Complainant/Applicant again made demand for payment of his dividend, he replied that after completion of the work of digital connection, he will pay his dividend. But, thereafter also, he was not paid his dividend. It is further alleged that whenever any meeting of the Company CCN was convened, the Complainant/applicant was not called to attend the meeting. On a doubt getting raised in his mind, the Complainant made an inquiry in the CCN Company on his own. 3. On the inquiry, it was found by him as under: (A) In the year 2016, in place of new set top boxes, second hand/old set top boxes were purchased by the CCN Company 4 from Indore (Madhya Pradesh) and were supplied to the customers and resultantly a 4 financial loss of Rs.3,30,00,000 was suffered by the CCN Company. (B) From the business of cable network a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000 and from the carriage fee a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000 was received in cash by the Applicant/ Non- applicants but the same were not deposited in the account of the CCN Company and were distributed by them among themselves, which resulted financial loss of Rs.20,00,00,000 to the CCN Company. (C) By making forged entries in the accounts of the CCN Company, a total estimated financial loss of Rs.40,00,00,000 was caused to the CCN Company. (D) A loss of Rs.5,00,00,000 was caused to the CCN Company by submitting forged bills against purchases of various articles relating to the CCN Company. (E) The Applicants/Non-applicants did not issue receipts against receipt of payments from local cable operators and did not deposit the said amount in the account of the CCN Company 5 and withheld the same with them and thereby they caused loss of crores of rupees to the CCN Company. (F) In the year 2016, Applicants/ Non-applicants Ashok Agrawal and Abhishek Agrawal, without any resolution or authority of the CCN Company, opened two accounts in the Central Bank of India, one at Shankar Nagar, Raipur branch and the other at Civil Line, Raipur branch and by depositing the income of the CCN Company in those two accounts they are misusing the said deposits in their favour. It is further alleged by the Complainant that in the year 2019, he made a written complaint to the Registrar of Companies and to the Hathway Private Limited, Head Office, Mumbai. On this, the 5 Applicants/ Non-applicants contacted him and they assured him that they will pay his whole dividend very soon and they will also deposit the amount of loss caused to the CCN Company in its account. But, they did not do so. 4. On the basis of the written complaint dated 10.6.2020 submitted by the complainant, First Information Report was registered by the concern P.S. under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the gravity of the offences as well as the condition of case, which has been caused by present Non-applicant no. 2 to 7/accused, bail orders of the present Non- applicant no. 2 to 7 is liable to be rejected. On perusal of order sheet of . Court below it can be construe pellucidly that Non-applicant no. 2 to 7 have not marked their presence before the Ld. Court below. since 03.06.2022 and hence disobeyed & violated. condition number (ii) and (iii) of Para 11 of the order dated 21.09.2020, passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of MCRC(A)/731/2020 and other connected matter. He further contended that the non-applicants/accused have not honored the condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court and acted in cavalier manner disobeyed the order of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the Non-applicants/accused have committed serious offence of financial irregularities, with intention to earn undue benefit. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be allowed the instant petition and bail order of respondents No.2 to 7 dated 21.09.2020 passed by this Court in MCRC(A) No.731 of 2020 may be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7 8. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail 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 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 8 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. 9. 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 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.” 9 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order dated 21.09.2020 that anticipatory bail was granted by this Court to the accused persons considering the totality of the facts of the case. Though the counsel has contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to them and are not appearing before the concerned trial Court on the fixed date, but application filed by the counsel for the accused for exemption for appearance of the accused before the trial Court and the same was allowed by the trial Court, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 21.09.2020. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant