1 2025:CGHC:3866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2241 of 2023 1 - Rajesh Kashyap S/o Shyam Lal Kashyap, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vill- Knasda, P.S. And Tah. Shivrinarayan, Dist.- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Shivrinarayan, Dist.- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chhedi Kashyap, S/o Funugilas, Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill- Singhul, P.S. And Tah. Shivrinarayan, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Jaikaran Kashyap, S/o Sukhiram, Aged About 50 Years, Vill- Tulsi, P.S. And Tah. Nawagarh, Dist.- Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HV Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/Accused For Respondent/State : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate Ms. Neeta T. Thawani, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.01.23 13:34:12 +0530 2 22/01/2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents 2 & 3 by the order dated 24.3.2023 passed in MCRCA No.40 of 2023. The said application for grant of anticipatory bail was filed by the accused in connection with Crime No.387/2022 registered in Police Station Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 307 & 34 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that earlier an offence was registered under Section 307/34 of the IPC. But subsequently, injured-Rajeshwar Kashyap died on account of the injuries sustained by him. However, the Police has not converted the said offence into an offence under Section 302 of the IPC till so far. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the change in circumstances, the anticipatory bail granted by this Court may be cancelled. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Accused as also learned counsel for the State would submit that the earlier anticipatory bail has been granted considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no case for cancellation of anticipatory bail is made out. Further, the charge sheet has been filed only under Section 307 of the IPC and no supplementary charge sheet has been filed. 3 4. It is well settled that rejection of a 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. In the matter of Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, the following was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4: “4.Rejection of a 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 the bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of 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.” 5. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, in the earlier order dated 24.3.2023, this Court after considering the other evidence available on record and also considering that there is delay in lodging the FIR and further considering that after the incident, when the victim was hospitalised in the Apollo Hospital Bilaspur, he had narrated the incident of accident only, granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons. 4 6. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that no case for cancellation of bail is made out. 7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna