1 2025:CGHC:1123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1852 of 2022 1 - Chandra Mani Mehar S/o Bhola Ram Mehar Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Puri Bagicha, Madhuban Para Raigarh .............Complainant., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aryan Kumar Nandi S/o Arun Kumar Nandi Aged About 40 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Bawlikunwa Ke Pass ...........Accused., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ajit Singh, GA. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Arvind Shrivastava with Ms. Kavita Bansal, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 08/01/2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) of the CrPC for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.08 18:02:03 +0530 2 No.2 herein by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2022 passed in MCRCA No.8/2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though at the time of consideration of anticipatory bail, a submission was made by counsel for the respondent/accused that the advance money taken by him along with the Bank interest shall be returned by him within a marginal period of 6 months, but he has not complied with the same and misused the liberty granted by this Court. Taking into account the said fact, anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused may be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the said prayer. He would submit that he has a bonafide intention to return the money, but on account of financial constraints, he could not arrange the money. He further submits that about 33 lakhs is outstanding against one of his partners namely, Deepak Kumar Sharma and he has not returned the said amount. He further submits that though there is civil dispute, but the complainant by filing a police case, through arm twisting method, wants to recover the amount and the Court cannot act as a recovery agent to realize dues of the complainant. Reliance is placed in the matter of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another {(2021) 2 SCC 779}. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. In the matter of Dilip Singh (Supra), the following has been observed at para-4 :- 3 “4.It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open to a Court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial. ” 6. Considering the entire fact situation of the case and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dilip Singh (Supra), this Court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2. 7. Accordingly, the CrMP is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve 4