1 2025:CGHC:1149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2198 of 2023 1 - Xyz ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Mahila Thana Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanni Sahu S/o Bodhanlal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Gali No. 02, Near Krishna Temple, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Neeta T. Thawani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2: Shri CR Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 08/01/2025 : 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 of the CrPC for cancellation of bail granted to respondent KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.08 17:49:17 +0530 2 No.2 herein by this Court vide order dated 23.8.2023 passed in MCRC No.5596/2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2/accused has violated the terms and conditions of the bail and after getting bail again started threatening the complainant and his father, therefore, the bail may be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused would oppose the said prayer. He would submit that the case is at the final stage and only the examination of the IO remains and a false allegation has been levelled only to create pressure on the accused and his family and he has not extended any threat. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that no case has been registered after grant of bail against the accused persons. 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 3 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.” 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