1 2025:CGHC:38740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No.2434 of 2025 • ABC Nil. Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Kaushal Prasad, S/o Suraj Jot Anand, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bagdrinand, Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sartaj Afzal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 483 (3) of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure-P/1) by the learned Trial Court, whereby the petitioner’s application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.10.2024 has been rejected. 2 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 13th October 2024 at Police Station Pali alleging that the respondent No.2 committed rape with her multiple times from 7th June 2020 onwards, threatened to kill her and her family and made a video to blackmail her. Based on this, Crime No. 278/2024 was registered against the respondent No.2 under Sections 450, 506, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC. On 15th October 2024, a compromise deed (Vivah Ikrarnama) was executed between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2’s family stating that the respondent No.2 would marry the petitioner if she does not object to his bail application. On 21st October 2024, the petitioner submitted a no-objection to the respondent No.2's bail application and the learned trial court granted bail to the respondent with conditions that he would not repeat the offense or influence prosecution witnesses vide order dated 21.10.2024. But in March 2025, the respondent No.2 threatened the petitioner and her father stating he would not marry her and would kill her. The petitioner reported these threats to the police on 25th April 2025 and mentioned them in her court testimony on 24th March 2025 and filed application before the learned Trial Court for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2, but the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner, against which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has violated the bail conditions and threatened the petitioner to kill her. The respondent No.2's action constitutes a clear cut violation of bail conditions, poses a grave threat to her life and undermines the administration of justice. Such threats violate the bail condition that the 3 respondent would not influence prosecution witnesses or repeat criminal behavior. The petitioner reported these threats to the police on 25th April 2025 and mentioned them in her court testimony on 24th March 2025, but the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court and the petitioner’s application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 has wrongly been rejected. Therefore, the petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel supports the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It appears from the record that the respondent No.2 was granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.278/2024, registered at Police Station Pali for the offence under Sections 450, 506, 376 (2) (N) of IPC on the basis of the compromise deed (Annexure-P/2) executed between both the parties and no objection certified issued by the petitioner in this regard, but subsequently the petitioner filed application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent No.2 is threatening her of life and has refused to marry her and on 24.03.2025, the report was lodged to the police station concerned, whereas the respondent No.2 was granted bail on 21.10.2024, as such it appears that no immediate report was lodged to the police station concerned, which the learned Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration and accordingly rejected the 4 application of the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the trial Court. 8. Consequently, the CRMP is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA