1 2025:CGHC:14079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2261 of 2018 Smt. Sanju Sharma W/o Shri Bhagat Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o- Ward No. 15, P.S.- Sakti, Tehsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aman Garg S/o Jaibhagwan Agrawal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Main Road, Sakti Thana And Tehsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jaiprakash Agrawal S/o Babulal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o- Ward No. 11, Bansal Apartment, Village- Sakti, P.S. And Tehsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent No.1/State, as well as Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 and 3 - Aman Garg and Jaiprakash Agrawal, as they were enlarged on anticipatory bail by an order dated 26.09.2018 in MCRCA Nos. 1153 of 2018 and 1214 of 2018. 3. The respondents had preferred anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 452/2018, registered at Police Station - Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 509(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after being granted bail from the coordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have abused the liberty given by the coordinate Bench of this Court as they are indulging in similar criminal activity by terrorizing the complainant and coercing the petitioner to withdraw her complaint through acts of violence during the period of bail, to which the petitioner wrote a complaint on 03.10.2018 before the Police Authority but still no action has been taken by the authority. It is submitted that only the statement of Investigating OfÏcer has been recorded in the present case before the trial Court. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be cancelled. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State vehemently opposes the prayer of the instant petition filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the coordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused vide 3 order dated 26.09.2018 in MCRCA Nos. 1153/2018 and 1214/2018, and there appears to be no any infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the same. Therefore, the application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons dated 26.09.2018 in MCRCA Nos. 1153/2018 and 1214/2018. 7. From the perusal of entire records of this petition and the documents do not suggest that the petitioner is able to project any valid reason for cancellation of bail with respect to the touchstone of principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 861/2025 [Kailash Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.] while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused, has observed here as under: “Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” It is settled principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 4 8. In the instant case, from the perusal of documents it transpires that the pleadings are not supported with a minimum proof that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair & impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the anticipatory bail granted can only be cancelled when (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible, once the bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled. In facts of this case nowhere suggest that any of the aforesaid condition exists in the instance case, therefore, the principles laid down as above shall squarely apply in the instant case. 10. Considering the same and applying the aforesaid principles, in the considered view of this Court, no case is made out for cancellation of bail or review or recall the order, it transpires from the record that the coordinate Bench of this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, and after the anticipatory bail being granted to the respondent No. 2 and 3 on 26.09.2018, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an afterthought to get the anticipatory bail of the respondent No.2 and 3 cancelled, therefore, I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 5 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2 and 3/accused, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 12. However, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar