1 2025:CGHC:45416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2780 of 2025 Mohammad Atik S/o Late Mohammad Gulam Aged About 52 Years R/o Golbazar, P.S. City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through In Charge Officer P.S. Koni, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Praveen Pal S/o Om Prakash Pal Aged About 42 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Mopka, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Governnment Advocate, appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present petition is for cancellation of the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 - Praveen Pal, as he was enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2023 in MCRC No. 8206 of 2023. 3. The applicant had preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he had been arrested in connection with Crime No. 404/2022, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 registered at Police Station Koni, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/accused after being granted regular bail by this Court in pursuance of the order dated 13.12.2023, has not followed the condition of the bail as prescribed under the Law, and threatened the witnesses of the case to not appear before the Court for giving the statement, for which a complaint was made before the Police Station Koni, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) on 14.12.2025, and after receiving the complaint the Police official has sent the complaint before the Jurisdictional Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) and after gone through the matter has adopted proceeding of Section 174 of BNSS. It is further submitted that the charges have been framed against the respondent No.2/accused but two other accused persons are not appearing before the trial Court and the next date fixed is 9th of October, 2025. Therefore, the regular bail granted to the respondent No. 2 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 charges have been framed against the accused/respondent No.2 and he has no criminal antecedents, on which ground this Court has granted regular bail to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.12.2023 in MCRC No. 8206 of 2023, furthermore, the allegation that the accused has threatened the witnesses of the case for changing their statements for 3 which a non-cognizable report was filed under Section 174 of the BNSS on 16.06.2025, goes to show that it is a vague report just to get the bail of the respondent No.2 cancelled, and there appears to be no any infirmity while granting regular bail to the respondent No.2. Therefore, the instant application is completely frivolous and deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order of this Court granting regular bail to the accused person dated 13.12.2023 in MCRC No. 8206 of 2023. 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 4 are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. 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 No.2 is trying to tamper with the evidence or are creating obstructions in fair and impartial trial so as to create a very cogent and overwhelming situation for cancellation of bail. 9. Furthermore, the regular bail granted can only be canceled 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 this Court had granted regular bail to the respondent No.2, and after the regular bail being granted to the respondent No.2 on 13.12.2023, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for cancelling the bail appears to be an 5 afterthought to get the bail of the respondent No.2 cancelled, therefore, I do not find any good ground made out for consideration of the same. 11. In view of the above, prayer for cancellation of the order passed by this Court granting regular bail to the respondent No.2/accused, is hereby refused. 12. As it has been informed that other two accused persons are not appearing before the trial Court on account of which the charges could not be framed against them and the trial is held up, as the charges have been only framed against the accused/respondent No.2. In view of the same, the trial Court is directed to ensure that the charges are framed against the other two accused persons also in accordance with law, and if for same reason or other, the charges cannot be framed against them, the trial of the accused/respondent No.2 be separated as the charges have been framed only against him. 13. Moreover, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and make efforts to 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. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar