1 2025:CGHC:15067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2602 of 2023 XYZ ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Rajendra Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harsh Kumar Shende S/o Late Shri S.K.D Shende, Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 03, Ward No. 28, Mahamaya Vihar, New Gayatri Nagar, Shankar Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. G.L. Uike, PL For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/03/2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.03.29 16:51:02 +0530 2 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the petition and reject the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2-Harsh Kumar Shende by this Court on 15.09.2023 in MCRC(A) No.1043/2023. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that on the pretext of marriage, the respondent no. 2 has committed sexual intercourse with the petitioner on several times. On the basis of report lodged by the petitioner, the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 506 of IPC have been registered against the respondent no. 2 in Crime no. 263/2023 at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). 3. It is alleged that after knowledge of registration of FIR, the respondent no. 2 used to give serious threatening to the petitioner for withdrawal of FIR and he has also provided threatening to the petitioner through other persons and thereby pressurized the petitioner for withdrawal of the FIR. 4. Respondent no. 2 filed an application U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Court below, which was rejected, then the respondent no. 2 filed an bail application before the Hon'ble Court for grant of bail, which was registered as M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1043/2023 and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.09.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after getting anticipatory bail, the respondent no. 2 has sent two persons in the house of petitioner on 3 01.11.2023 when the petitioner was alone in her house and on that day, the said unknown persons have informed that they are the nuxlite and they have been sent by their Boss Harsh Kumar Shende and they given proposal of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner for withdrawal of the FIR against the respondent no. 2, but the petitioner has refused to withdraw the FIR, upon which, one person has kept the pistol beside the head of petitioner and given serious warning that if the petitioner will not withdraw the FIR against the respondent no. 2 within a week, then they will kill the petitioner and by giving said warning, the said persons have left the house of petitioner. The petitioner is scared about the above serious threats given for withdrawal of FIR and immediately after the incident, the petitioner has made written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raipur on 02.11.2023. Due to above serious threats, the petitioner is scared about her life and life of her other family members. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the anticipatory bail granted by this Court is well merited and need not any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 8. On the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held in para 4, which reads as under:- “4. Rejection of 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 bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or 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 5 trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non- bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hazari Lal Das Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 652 held in para 7, which reads thus:- “7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 6 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, pleadings made in the petition, further keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions on the issue of cancellation of bail, this Court finds no such reason or supervening circumstance so as to warrant cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused. It is clear from the order dated 15.09.2023 that anticipatory bail was granted by this Court to respondent No.2 considering the totality of the facts of the case. Though the counsel has contended that the accused is misusing the liberty granted to him and is not following the terms and conditions imposed upon him, but has not brought on record any such thing which could substantiate his aforesaid contention and make out a prima facie case for cancellation of bail. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed. 12. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant