1 2025:CGHC:36939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2355 of 2025 1 - Xyz (Details Of The Petitioner/victim And Her Affidavit Is Annexed In A Separate Envelope) As Per Section 72 of the BNS, 2023 ---- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S.- Civil Line, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Altaf Khan @ Anshu, S/o- Shfeequlla Khan Aged About 25 Years R/o- Gram - Mohra, Yadav Mohalla, Thana - Seepat, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.)----Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this petition under 483(3) r/w Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by this Court in CRA No. 1563/2024 (Annexure P-1). 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that complainant/victim lodged report to the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that accused/respondent No.2 herein on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with the victim and also exploited her socially and emotionally despite knowing the fact that she belongs to a Hindu family and had knowingly enticed her to have sexual 2 intercourse and later denied to marry her. Based upon the report, FIR was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 376, 377, 294, 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the accused and he was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that accused/respondent No.2 after being released on bail pursuant to order dated 24.01.2025 in CRA No. 1563/2024, has not followed the terms and condition imposed upon him by the Court as the accused and his friends are continuously threatening the victim/applicant for withdrawal of case registered against him and humiliated publicly on 31.05.2025. on 04.06.2025 the applicant lodged a report against respondent No.2 before the concerned Police Station but the Police has not taken any action in this regard. Since respondent No.2 is violating the terms and conditions of the bail order dated 24.01.2025, the same may be cancelled in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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 3 the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealth 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 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. 7. 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, 4 satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the applicant, 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 bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order dated 24.01.2025 that this Court granted bail to the accused person considering the totality of the facts of the case. The applicant has though contended that the accused person is misusing the liberty granted to him and are not following the terms and conditions imposed upon him, but has not brought on record any such thing which could substantiate his aforesaid contention and make out a prima facie case for cancellation of bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti