1 2025:CGHC:5486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1844 of 2022 1 - Xyz Nil ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Mohan @ Manmohan Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Gandhi Chowk Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 30/01/2025 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1100/2022 vide order dated 01.09.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the release of the Respondent No. 2 on bail, he has violated the conditions granting anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1100/2022. He contended that after his release on bail, the Respondent No. 2 has again abused and threatened the victim and have also thrown some liquid upon her. The said incident was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which, intially, SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 the crime was registed on zero and hence, the bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 should be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/State submits that after registering the crime based on the complaint made by the victim, upon investigation, it revealed that the complaint is suspicious and the police have submitted the closure report before the concerned Court on 22.01.2025. He contended that during investigation, the statement of the independent witnesses have also been recorded. 4. During the course of argument, when the question is posed as to the stage of trial, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim and her mother have been examined before the Trial Court and as per his instructions, out of 24 witnesses, 09 witnesses have already been examined. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and further, that the police have investigated the crime and have submitted that closure report, victim and her mother have also been examined before the Trial Court and there is no further complaint of any of the act of the applicant after 15.10.2022, I do not find any good ground to allow this petition. 7. Accordingly, this petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey