Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3765 (HP)

Neeraj Bijalwan v. State of H. P.

2025-10-17

Sushil Kukreja

body2025
Judgment : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant petition under Section 483(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) has been filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 (accused) by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 in case FIR No. 196 of 2023, dated 24.06.2023, under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), registered at Police Station Sadar- Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. 2. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2/accused, after obtaining the anticipatory bail from this Court started giving threats to him that if the complaint filed against the accused was not withdrawn, he would be done to death. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to avoid Whatsapp calls of respondent No. 2/accused, he started calling friends and relatives of the petitioner and on 30.05.2024 Sunil Kumar (friend of the petitioner) received a call on his mobile from some unknown person, whereby, he was threatened that he would be done to death. Consequently, on 31.05.2024 two separate complaints were filed by the petitioner and his friend Sunil Kumar. However, respondent No. 1 neither took any action against respondent No. 2/accused nor showed any interest in the present matter, which resulted into a physical attack on Sunil Kumar on 08.06.2024 at the instance of respondent No. 2/accused. Despite various complaints registered against respondent No. 2/accused, he kept on threatening the petitioner. Thus, it has been prayed that since the petitioner apprehends severe danger to his life and to the lives of his family members, relatives and friends, hence, the present petition may be allowed and anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused may be cancelled. 3. Respondent No. 2 by filing reply to the petition has denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioner against him and prayed dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and also carefully gone through the material available on record. 5. It is a settled law that cancellation of bail requires altogether a different consideration than granting of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. In Dolat Ram and others Vs. 5. It is a settled law that cancellation of bail requires altogether a different consideration than granting of bail. Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. In Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted, has to be dealt with and considered on different basis. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “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 trial…….” 6. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan and others, (2011) 5 SCC 296 , the Hon’ble Supreme in para 23 of the judgment observed as under :- "It is also relevant to note that there is difference between yardstick for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail 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 concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other words, 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." 7. Thus, the factors relevant for grant of bail are different and approach required to be adopted while considering application for cancellation of bail is different. In the instant case, the petitioner has alleged that after obtaining the order of anticipatory bail, respondent No.2 started giving threats to him, his family members, relatives and friends through phone calls from different numbers at his instance, pressurizing him to withdraw the FIR or else his life or lives of his near and dears would be taken away. 8. Status report on behalf of respondent No.1/ State has been filed and a perusal thereof would go to show that after receiving the complaint from the petitioner, the matter was inquired by Incharge Police Post Sultanpur and CDR/CAF of mobile numbers, from which, the petitioner was being allegedly threatened, were obtained, wherefrom it transpired that neither the said alleged numbers were available in database of the companies nor they were in active use and no calls whatsoever were made to the mobile number of the petitioner either by the accused or on his behalf. It has further come in the status report that respondent No. 2/accused has not violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court. 9. Therefore, from the perusal of the material available on record, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 had violated any of the conditions as stipulated in the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court. As this Court has assigned reasons for granting the bail and the accused has not committed any act thereafter warranting cancellation of bail, the question of cancelling the bail does not arise. As this Court has assigned reasons for granting the bail and the accused has not committed any act thereafter warranting cancellation of bail, the question of cancelling the bail does not arise. Thus, looking to the above exposition of law and also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition for cancellation of bail deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.